HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/12/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
December 17, 2007
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION, WESTWOOD ROOM
7:00 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Joint City Council/School Board Minutes November 27, 2007
3b. Study Session Minutes November 13, 2007
3c. Study Session Minutes November 26, 2007
3d. City Council Minutes December 3, 2007
3e. Study Session Minutes December 10, 2007
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent
calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move
items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those
items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Appointment of Board and Commission Members
Recommended Action: Motion to appoint the citizen representatives to fill
vacancies on Boards and Commissions.
5b. Reappointment of Board and Commission Members
Recommended Action: Motion to reappoint Commissioners as city
representatives to respective Boards and Commissions.
6. Public Hearings-None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Resolutions adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA levies.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Budget for
2008 and approving the 2007 Property Tax Levy collectible in 2008.
Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the HRA Levy for 2008.
8b. Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve a resolution adopting the 2008-2012
Capital Improvements Program
8c. Resolution Setting Utility Rates.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a Resolution Setting Utility Rates.
8d. Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist
Hospital Campus.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve a Resolution regarding the Planned
Unit Development Minor Amendment for the Methodist Hospital Campus at 6500
Excelsior Boulevard, subject to conditions.
8e. Contract for Private Redevelopment - Duke Realty Limited Partnership.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Contract
for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited
Partnership.
8f. Tobacco License Violation Penalties.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt first reading of ordinance amendments
to Chapter 8, Subdivision X, Sec. 8-378 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code
concerning tobacco license violation penalties and setting second reading for
January 7, 2008.
8g. Resolution declaring ARINC, INC in default of its obligations under the
Contract.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve resolution declaring ARINC, INC in
default of city wireless broadband network contract.
8h. Resolution approving 2008 compensation.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution confirming a 3% general
increase for non-union employees, not including the City Manager at this time,
continuing the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program and also increasing
Performance Program Pay for Paid-on-Call Firefighters by 3% for 2008.
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 2007
SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Council member or a member
of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Award of the 2008 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture
Grants.
4b. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting the equipment replacement schedule
budgeted for 2008 and authorize staff to acquire equipment as allowed by Statute, Charter, or
Ordinance.
4c. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for Hopkins
Raspberry Festival Association, Inc., operating at Al’s Bar, 3912 Excelsior Boulevard.
4d. Motion to approve a contract in the amount of $60,000.00 with Ostvig Tree, Inc. for 2008 tree
pruning (trimming).
4e. Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $3,557.77 for alley
paving in the 2900 block Raleigh/Salem Avenues – City Project No. 2007-2900 with Standard
Sidewalk, Inc., City Contract No. 31-07.
4f. Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement
A48775/A88026 as drafted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, dated
December 5, 2007.
4g. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 and No. 2 to Contract No. 51-07 – 2007 MSA Street
Rehabilitation Project– City Project No. 2006-1101 and 2006-1102.
4h. Motion to approve Change Orders No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to Contract No. 52-06 - Lake Street
Reconstruction Project– City Project No. 2006-0100 and 2005-1101.
4i. Motion to authorize staff to solicit proposals for residential recycling collection services and
residential refuse & yard waste collection services for the period of October 1, 2008 to
September 30, 2013.
4j. Motion to approve resolution award of $2,000 to St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts to provide
on-site arts instruction and activities to residents at Hamilton House.
4k. Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the fund equity transfers and fund closings.
4l. Motion to approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes November 14, 2007.
4m. Motion to approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007.
4n. Motion to approve for filing Vendor Claims.
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 3a
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Joint City Council / School Board Meeting
St. Louis Park Schools Administrative Office
Room A204
November 27, 2007
The meeting convened at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Susan Sanger, John Basill, Loran Paprocki and C.
Paul Carver.
Councilmembers absent: Phil Finkelstein and Paul Omodt.
School Board Members present: Board Chair Jim Yarosh, Jerry Timian, Julie Sweitzer, Larry
Shapiro, Bruce Richardson, Rolf Peterson, Nancy Gores and Board Member Elect Pam Rykken.
City Staff present: Tom Harmening, City Manager and Bridget Gothberg, Organizational
Development (arrived at 7 p.m.)
School District staff present: Dr. Debra Bowers, Superintendent
Others Present: Bob Wittman, Facilitator.
Meeting
The City council and School board heard a presentation by Hazel Rienhardt and Associates
regarding a study of St. Louis Park demographics. Discussion followed.
Updates were shared regarding the school district equity task force and city’s marketing and
branding project.
Discussion also took place regarding gathering places for the community and ways the City and
School District could collaborate and provide support for this Vision St. Louis Park area.
Next Meeting
The next Joint City Council and School Board meeting will be held in the Spring of 2008.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 13, 2007
The meeting convened at 6:35 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Loran Paprocki
and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: John Basill and Paul Omodt
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin); Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke); Finance Director (Mr. DeJong); Recreation Superintendent
(Mr. Birno), Park and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Economic Development Coordinator
(Mr. Hunt), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Public Works/Engineering
Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Heintz).
Guests: David Juliff and Marie Cote, SRF Consulting Group Inc.; Paul Hyde and Jenny Hanson,
Real Estate Recycling.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening and Council discussed study session agenda planning.
2. 2008 Budget Discussion
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
Mr. Rardin presented his report and stated that increased oil prices have affected the budget and
direction is being taken to maintain services and incorporate inflation. As streetlights
deteriorate, staff would like to replace them based on life cycle. The realistic lifespan for a
streetlight is 25 to 30 years depending on the environment, with a cost range from $2,500
(streetlight on pole) to $300,000 (traffic signal intersection). Council suggestion was to establish
a fund, similar to a stormwater utility, dedicated for this use, which would help ride out the peaks
and valleys. Staff is attempting to get a better handle on the street light inventory, as some are
owned by the City and others are rented through Xcel. Mr. Rardin stated that he could bring a
street light replacement plan back to Council for review.
The City has been unable to meet City ordinance requirements for large snowfall (4-6 inches)
removal on streets, which then makes it difficult to enforce on residents. If Council wishes to
adhere to the current ordinance, then reprioritization of maintenance efforts will be needed in
order to dedicate more staff time. Though 6-7 snow cleaning machines are needed, the City only
has 3-4, due to cost constraints ($15,000 per machine). Council consensus was that staff
contemplate the issue further (incorporating additional items such as impediments for
wheelchairs and lightpoles in the middle of sidewalks, etc.) and bring back to Council on
November 26 for continued discussion.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3b) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 13, 2007
Ms. Walsh presented her report, which included no additions to the proposed budget other than
$5,000 for graffiti removal. The environmental budget showed an increase because of the
number of diseased elm trees, and a report will be created this spring regarding potential diseases
and their prevention. Aquatic center revenues this year were consistent with previous years;
however, there were increases in season passes and concessions.
Consideration is being given to the concept of daytime circulator commuter buses within the City
during the summer. Mr. Birno reported receiving good student (ages 9-18) response to the
concept at Cedar Manor and the Junior High, with safety being their first stated concern.
Estimated cost is $60,000 for the service, which would allow ridership within the city 2-3 blocks
from any given residence, and financial partners would be sought (such as AAA and Community
Education). Councilmember Sanger commented that she would want the service extended to
seniors and adults. Mr. Birno stated that the plan could begin with a three-month program next
summer. Mayor Jacobs commented that, from a societal standpoint, he would like kids to get
used to the idea of using mass transit.
There was Council consensus that staff research partnerships (with City commitment $20,000-
30,000 range), financial possibilities (such as $50 ID commuter pass but with first being $10,
potential scholarships), incorporate as many generations onto the buses as possible, and provide
Council with update regarding Dial A Ride.
3. Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and noted concern that assumptions made now may be
different than in 2-3 years. Mr. Merkley added that multi-family will be an optional service and
there will be need for a more educational effort that will be built into the rates.
Discussion ensued regarding unpredictable price assumptions, organic separation, need for
clarity about one provider being able to provide additional services, contract extensions, and the
risk that providers may bid higher now in anticipation of higher prices. Organics would not be
the predominant piece of the refuse program. There is need to bid out services periodically, for
accountability and to keep prices reasonable, and to contract for a minimum of five years (three
is insufficient). Mr. Harmening stated that time is running out to meet the October 2008 deadline
if Council wishes for staff to undertake legitimate bids for the next five years, though also noting
that the only way to negotiate is to extend the current contract.
There was Council consensus to bid out for services as recommended by staff.
4. Proposed Redevelopment of the Former Erv’s Lawnmower Repair Property located
at 7102 & 7104 Lake Street
Mr. Locke presented the staff report.
Mr. Hyde provided an update on the Highway 7 project and then described the proposed
improvement plan for 7102 and 7104 Lake Street property. The goal is to clean up the site of the
former Erv’s Lawnmower Repair property and provide amenity to office tenants with a retail
building within the current C2 zoning, which would create 10-15 lower-paying jobs. Grant
funding for the redevelopment is dependent upon the applicant receiving $475,000 in City
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3b) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 13, 2007
assistance; and if that is not possible, then the applicant will need to withdraw. A cost of
$320,000 has been estimated to clean up the site from pollution, demolish the current building,
and remove the billboards.
It was cited that the subject area is contaminated, an improvement would fit within the obligation
that the City has as a steward of the environment, and partnering with an organization now to
clean up this very visible site would cost the City a fraction of full cost to do so on its own in the
future. Council expressed support for a mixed use of the site and removing the current building
and billboards, acknowledging the site’s shortcomings and bad economics, but also concern
about additional traffic, lower paying jobs associated with the current proposal, and how the
average taxpayer would be affected.
There was Council consensus that staff continue to work with Real Estate Recycling regarding
the site and support a resolution regarding a grant request.
5. Highway 7 / Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update
Mr. Rardin reported that Concept D is the remaining viable option for the interchange project.
Mr. Juliff displayed photo renderings of Concept D and described the plan, which will allow for
heavy rail as well as grade separation of light rail and trail, as well as more flexibility with regard
to the interchange. Mr. Harmening noted that the County should participate in some significant
way to the cost of the grade separation intersection and that good, sound data will be needed to
demonstrate that.
There was Council consensus that staff move forward with the plan and come back to Council in
December with an update.
6. Communications
Mr. Hoffman presented an update regarding the Woodale and Highway 7 Soil Vapor Study. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hired STS to determine why Edina was observing
elevated VOC’s in one of their wells. Now EPA, PCA, the Minnesota Department of Health are
involved in a study to determine if VOC’s in the shallow ground water and soil may be a health
risk in St. Louis Park. Included in this study will be four neighborhoods within the City,
including Sorensen, Elmwood, Lenox, and Brooklawn. Mr. Hoffman discussed the testing
process and possible timeline.
Discussion ensued regarding the City pre-testing some high occupancy facilities (such as high
school, etc.) in advance and Mr. Harmening said staff would look into that.
Mr. Hoffman indicated that expediency in getting information out and testing undertaken is very
important, as is the fact that the state and federal agencies need to be well informed and prepared
for anticipated questions raised by concerned residents. Council suggested briefing
neighborhood association’s contacts before letters are distributed to residents about the soil
testing and remediation plan.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3b) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 13, 2007
There was Council consensus that communication with residents and the community needed to
occur very soon and that answers needed to be developed for anticipated questions the
community might ask. Mr. Harmening indicated he would keep Council apprised.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. West End Financial Assistance Update
8. Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy – Amendment to Ordinance Code
Chapter 32: Utilities
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 26, 2007
The meeting convened at 6:35 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger. C. Paul Carver
arrived at 6:40 p.m. Phil Finkelstein present via phone.
Councilmembers absent: John Basill, Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Public
Works (Mr. Rardin), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Community Development Director
(Mr. Locke), Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther),
Finance Director (Mr. DeJong) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
Guest: JR Anderson, Pat Mascia, Duke Realty team; Tom Asp, Consultant, Boy Scout Troop 307
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening and Council discussed study session agenda planning.
2. Housing Authority Report & Work Plan
Mr. Harmening explained the Housing Authority work plan outline. He stated they wanted to
ensure that the Housing Authority’s (HA) work supports the strategic direction and vision of the
City.
Councilmember Paprocki asked if the soft housing market had any ramifications on the Housing
Authority purchasing homes and inquired what was projected for next year. He also inquired as
to what was happening with the excess land sale funding. Mayor Jacobs stated he felt the
funding should be a community issue, not just a Housing Authority issue. Councilmember
Paprocki also stated that while providing funding for those whom could not afford to buy, they
also need to make sure that they can maintain the home. Councilmember Sanger asked if the
Housing Authority would have any involvement in the Duplex program and suggested they
should budget a larger amount for move up activity. Mr. Harmening stated the Commission and
staff would be present December 10th to answer those questions.
Council complimented the Housing Authority staff and members for the great report.
3. Duke “West End” Development Update
Mr. Harmening dialed Councilmember Finkelstein via phone to join in the discussion. Ms.
McMonigal updated Council on the “West End” development project.
Mr. Mascia provided Council an update on the overall site plan, stating he hoped they could go
vertical with the project in April and complete it by September 2009. He stated the master plan
had basically remained the same, with both office buildings being approximately 277,500 square
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3c) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 26, 2007
feet and hoped the new buildings would blend with what was already there. He further noted
that they were working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to incorporate water
features between the office towers.
Mr. Anderson updated Council on the retail portion as well as arcade area of the site. He stated
they had revamped the parking ramp, placing it underground to bring retail out to the street and
allow interaction with Park Place, making it more inviting. He also stated the ramp now focused
on pedestrian traffic rather than automobile traffic.
Councilmember Paprocki asked if the grocer would have a nice facade on all sides. Mr.
Anderson stated it would be treated for 360-degree views. Councilmember Paprocki asked if
they had any traffic concerns with delivery trucks turning into the development. Ms. McMonigal
stated trucks would have limited delivery hours between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and because
deliveries would vary, it should not cause any concerns during rush hours.
Councilmember Sanger asked the difference between greenscape versus hardscape. Mr.
Anderson stated the area in question would feel like one big plaza area, stating it would be paved
and not green. Mr. Mascia stated the plaza area would be approximately 60 – 80 feet from
building face to building face and would tie the retail and parking structure together.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the project still included a hotel. Mr. Mascia stated they are
currently working on closing a deal with a hotel chain. She further asked if there would be
parking immediately east of the theater. Mr. Anderson stated there would be two entrances as
well as service lane into the structure. Councilmember Sanger asked if there would still be a
skyway entrance to the retail. Mr. Mascia stated they eliminated that option because they felt it
wouldn’t be a smart expenditure of money, stating they would still have a driveable access from
the existing ramp to the new parking garage.
Mr. Harmening asked how refuse and delivery trucks would service the structure. Mr. Anderson
stated the majority of the retail uses FedEx and UPS type trucks, and illustrated the entrances
that would be available for access. Mr. Harmening inquired about the public restroom areas.
Mr. Anderson stated they would be located in the theater lobby, which would be close to the
police sub-station.
Mr. Locke explained they were currently negotiating a redevelopment contract with Duke for
approximately $27 million dollars. The revised assistance package calls for the city to provide
the Redeveloper with $22 million in assistance and city construction of up to $5 million worth in
public improvements. In order to offset the extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the
Duke Property, it is proposed that the EDA/City provide the Redeveloper with $21.1 million in
tax increment (TIF) Notes and a reduction of $900,000 in Parkland Dedication fees
(approximately half the required amount). He stated this would simplify things and allow the
City to gain control of the off site public improvements and fund projects with increment notes
from this project. $21.1 million would take about 21 years of tax increment.
Mayor Jacobs stated he was impressed with the design and was happy it met his expectations.
Councilmember Paprocki stated concern with the tax increment changes. Mr. Locke stated it’s
actually following the terms of the structure. Councilmember Sanger stated she was happy with
the new plan and also stated concern with the 21 years of TIF. She further asked if Duke had
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3c) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 26, 2007
secured any tenants. Mr. Anderson stated deals were in the process of getting finalized, stating
they have letters of intent for over 50 percent.
Councilmember Carver stated the project looked good and asked if the TIF length was a result of
anything project specific. Mr. Hunt stated it is because of the updated new statewide fiscal
disparity rates set.
There was Council consensus to have staff proceed ahead with the development plans.
Mr. Mascia thanked City staff for their organization and process provided at their meetings.
4. 2008 Budget
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report, stating Council had previously established the preliminary
tax increase at 6 percent, but using revenue changes suggested by staff, they could reduce the tax
levy down to 5.6 percent. Mr. DeJong suggested cutting the amount budgeted for election judges
and relocating marketing and branding to the development fund. He also suggested increasing
the budget by adding worker’s compensation back into the fund for the paid-on-call firefighters
and reducing police and fire dispatch pension fund transfers by $50,000.
Councilmember Sanger stated concern with cutting the election judge fees since 2008 was an
election year. Mr. Harmening stated they were actually budgeting $8,000 more than was spent
for the 2004 presidential election. She also asked why the Golden Valley contribution appeared
to be going down. Mr. DeJong stated they moved the fiber path connection from the dispatch
center fund to the equipment replacement fund and because of that Golden Valley’s share would
be going down. Councilmember Carver asked why the City would be taking on 100 percent of
the shared burden, suggesting Golden Valley still continue to pay for their portion. Mr. DeJong
stated Councilmember Carver had a good point. Mr. Harmening stated he would have staff look
into it again.
Councilmember Carver suggested adding the two potential budget increases. Councilmember
Sanger agreed and asked where the money for the worker’s compensation had been taken from
before. Mr. DeJong stated they had been taken it out of the employee flexible fund, which has
gone into deficit the past couple years. Councilmember Paprocki asked if by adding the $50,000
for police and fire dispatch, would they get out of spending down the principal. Mr. DeJong
stated it would reduce the annual transfer out from $384,000 to $334,000. Councilmember
Paprocki asked what the amount of funds generated were. Mr. DeJong stated about $280,000 a
year. Mr. Harmening stated the idea was to slowly work their reliance off on that fund, since it
was really set up more for capital purposes versus cost operations. Councilmember Sanger asked
if there were any other circumstances where there was this type of financial reliance, and if so,
suggested they should think about moving it onto the general fund. Mr. Harmening stated there
has also been a transfer from the housing rehab fund for about $80,000 a year. He further stated
that was another example of where they took from a non-general fund source to fund a general
fund problem and stated the goal was to get away from this type of ongoing operation.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would like to have everything put into the proper funds prior
to any future levy limits being set. Mr. Harmening suggested that with the work staff is doing on
the strategic direction, they should put some funds aside as a placeholder for unforeseen
expenditures. Councilmember Sanger stated concern with things getting put into the
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3c) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 26, 2007
development fund and suggested they plan a study session discussion on what the purposes of
the development fund is and set some perimeters. Councilmember Paprocki suggested
discussing it at the retreat. Mr. DeJong stated he was optimistic they could come close in
balancing. Councilmember Paprocki stated concern for the amount budgeted for WiFi cameras
for graffiti purposes, stating the money could be a better value spent elsewhere.
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report on sidewalk snow removal practice and options.
Council and staff had discussion on who should maintain the snow removal on sidewalks and the
costs involved. Councilmember Sanger stated the inconsistencies are historical and asked what it
would cost to do all the sidewalks. She stated the discrepancies were only going to get more
pronounced and suggested if they didn’t take it on citywide they may have to create stricter
enforcement. Councilmember Carver suggested staff look into how much it would cost to do all
the sidewalks, no sidewalks, and cost and equipment implications, and bring it back for a future
study session. Councilmember Paprocki asked if a snow removal package could be included in
the parks and trails fees. Mr. Harmening suggesting leaving the 2008 budget as is and ask for
public input in the community survey for the 2009 budget.
Mr. Harmening asked Council if they had any questions for Mr. Locke on the housing rehab
fund. Councilmember Sanger asked if the budget amounts were sufficient. Mr. DeJong stated
he thought the question asked at the last study session was why was there so much variability in
other expenditures, clarifying that it was dependent on the usage of rehab loan products
available. Councilmember Sanger clarified that given that more people are finding housing in
sober houses and electing to stay put, would that dictate the need for having a greater amount of
money available. Mr. DeJong stated the money was included in the budget for 2008 and if it
were all to be used, they would take from the housing rehab fund. Mr. Locke stated it is based
on the market and its demand.
There was Council consensus to proceed with the proposed budget, including the recommended
cuts and increases by staff.
5. Wireless Update
Mr. Pires updated Council on the wireless project. Mr. Harmening stated ARINC had been
optimizing the system and getting the radios to talk to one another to make them work. He
further stated at this point it would be best to see how ARINC performs and where they are on
November 30th and at that point they could access what the City’s options would be on ARINC’s
ability to delivery the project.
Councilmember Carver agreed and suggested the options be laid out by the City Attorney in a
letter format. He also asked Mr. Pires why the pilot has been available and working for him
since April 2006, but yet there are difficulties with it citywide. Mr. Pires stated that citywide has
had some issues with installation and radio brands and specifications not being done the same
way, but fundamentally they were expecting the same performance. Mr. Asp reminded everyone
that the core technology was same.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3c) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 26, 2007
Councilmember Sanger asked if there were any significant changes in ARINC’s rollout since the
update on November 19th. Mr. Harmening stated no. Mayor Jacobs clarified that the issue
wasn’t about power; the problems were with the radios.
It was the consensus of Council to have the City Attorney outline options if ARINC does not
meet the November 30th deadline.
6. Communications (verbal)
Mr. Harmening explained the recent memo he sent out for manager evaluations, suggesting an
informal process by an outside person to perform them.
It was the consensus of Council to have staff craft an informal manager evaluation.
The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. October Financial Reports
8. Vision Update
9. Tobacco Penalties
10. Marketing and Branding Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 3, 2007
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Finance Director (Mr.
DeJong), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Public Works Administrative Specialist (Ms. Hellekson),
Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
Guest: Jennifer Klennert, Marketing Manager, Waste Management.
2. Presentations
2a. Green Business Awards
Mayor Jacobs and Ms. Klennert presented the Green Business Awards to General Office
Products, Rainbow Treecare and Stahl Construction Company encouraging everyone to
help the environment with going green.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of November 5, 2007
It was noted on page three, item #8a, the second paragraph, second sentence should state:
“…chose not to bring it forward.”
It was noted on page five, item #8b, the second paragraph, fifth sentence should state:
“…positions being Minnesota Nursing Association (MNA) contract positions.”
It was noted on page five, item #8b, the second paragraph, sixth sentence should state:
“…had been covered under the Minnesota Nursing Association labor contract and MNA
pension for the last twenty years.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. City Council Minutes of November 19, 2007
It was noted on page three, item #6a, the fifth paragraph, first sentence should state:
“…still did not make a commitment…”
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3d) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes December 3, 2007
It was noted on page six, item #8c, the second paragraph, should state: “… on to state
that if the street was that narrow…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. Special Study Session Minutes of November 19, 2007
It was noted on page two, item #1, the second paragraph, first sentence should state: “…
hard time deciphering because such a large proportion was placed in the miscellaneous
category.”
It was noted on page two, item #2, the second paragraph, fourth sentence should state:
“…also having supply issues with solar panels.”
It was noted on page two, item #1, the fourth paragraph, first sentence should state: “…
need for another staff person.”
It was noted on page three, item #2, the second paragraph, fourth sentence should state:
“Mr. Harmening said ARINC…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2346-07 amendment
deleting Section 8-258 (b) of the Ordinance Code regarding eliminating the
Tobacco smoke testing and disclosure requirement for licensed food and beverage
establishments.
4b. Motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2347-07 amending St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code Chapter 32: Utilities.
4c. Motion to approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract 129-06 Highway 7 / Wooddale
Avenue Interchange Project - Project No. 2004-1700.
4d. Adopt the following Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License
Violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager:
Resolution No. 07-146 Apple American Ltd, Applebee’s Grill Bar
Resolution No. 07-147 Vescio’s of St Louis Park, Vescio’s Italian Restaurant
Resolution No. 07-148 Rackner Inc., Bunny’s,
Resolution No. 07-149 Taste of India St. Louis Park, Taste of India
Resolution No. 07-150 Al’s Liquor Store Inc., Al’s
Resolution No. 07-151 Miracle Mile Liquor Barrel, Liquor Barrel
Resolution No. 07-152 W2005 WYN Hotels, Doubletree Park Place Hotel.
4e. Motion to approve Amendment No. 18 to Contract No. 1893 Reilly Tar &
Chemical Corporation.
4f. Award Engle Fabrication Inc. contract for a mounted water delivery system.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3d) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes December 3, 2007
4g. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 07-153 authorizing execution of contract with
ENSR Consulting and Engineering for consultant services.
4h. Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 60-07, Flood
Improvement Project - Area #26 (Dakota Park) - Project 2003-1300.
4i. Motion to approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract 148-06 Dakota Park Flood
Improvement Project - Project 2003-1300.
4j. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 07-154 establishing a special assessment for the
repair of the water service line at 3433 Rhode Island Avenue South.
4k. Motion to approve for filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Harmening requested Council add agenda Item 8a, a closed meeting to discuss with
the City Attorney the Initiation of a Lawsuit against ARINC and related legal strategy.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to appoint
citizen representative Renee Fitzgerald to the Housing Authority, effective January 1,
2008 with a term expiration of June 30, 2008, filling a vacated position; and also motion
to appoint citizen representative Mary Feldman to the Human Rights Commission,
effective upon approval of this motion, with a term expiration of December 31, 2008,
filling a vacated position.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Truth-in-Taxation Public Hearing on the 2007 Budget and Property Tax
Levy
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
Mr. Harmening explained that the 5.6 percent budget increase includes levying back
funds to the police and fire dispatch services. He went on to explain that they had been
using a capital special services fund to pay for the ongoing dispatch services. Mr.
Harmening stated with approval of the increase, they would be gradually working toward
the use of funds from that account.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3d) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes December 3, 2007
Karen Pere, 1408 Nevada Avenue South, had questions concerning the increased square
footage of their property. Mr. Bultema stated he would be happy to discuss the situation
with her.
Stan Jurgensen, 2309 Westbridge Lane, stated concern with the total spending going up
4.5 percent and social security only going up 2.3 percent and asked that consideration be
given to those who don’t receive increases of 4.5 percent to cover the increased property
taxes.
Chad Larson stated concern with taxes and the per capita income difference, illustrating a
line item chart of his City taxes for the past 12 years and stated he has had double-digit
increases each year. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they were just the City taxes.
Mr. Larson stated that was correct. Mayor Jacobs encouraged him to discuss the matter
with the City Assessor. Mr. Larson went on to state concern with the City Reserves and
referenced the recent Florida reserve problems. Councilmember Finkelstein explained
that Florida had a State mandated money market account that had been invested badly in
consumer loans, further stating that the City places their funds in conservative
investments. Mr. Larson stated in viewing the 2007 adopted budget information on the
City web page, he did not see a written expense management policy. Mr. DeJong stated
there was an expense management policy that is governed by the approval process and
individual authorization levels. He stated that all expenditures are signed off by at least
two people and he personally reviews every expenditure over $5,000. Mayor Jacobs
stated that yearly auditors also verify the expenditures. Mr. Harmening explained the
budget itself was the expense policy, stating the charter contains requirements for the
City Manager and Council approvals, as well as internal policies on what department
directors are allowed to approve. Mayor Jacobs went on to state that the policy would be
the Council and what they think they should be spending to do what was necessary for
the long term benefit of the community.
Deb Jetzer, a fourteen-year resident, explained her frustrations with the way condo units
were being assessed and compared the rates with the home she recently sold. Mr.
Bultema stated he would be more than happy to discuss her situation. He further stated it
sounded like it was relatively close in terms of the margin of error, stating there may not
be a whole lot that could be done.
Nile Fitzpatrick, 40th Lane asked if the information presented tonight would be available
on the web site and inquired about the taxable market value versus limited market value
differences on a residential level. Mr. Bultema stated that the best way to explain was by
evaluating each parcel individually and suggested Mr. Fitzpatrick discuss the matter
further with him. Mr. Fitzpatrick also asked who monitored the info@stlouispark.org
mailbox, explaining that his wife had sent three emails to the address and finally the third
one was acknowledged. Mr. Harmening stated it’s monitored daily by the
communications department. Mayor Jacobs advised Mr. Fitzpatrick and the community
they could send their questions directly to the Council or staff.
Mr. and Mrs. Dale Johnson, 1319 Texas, stated concern with the way the City plows
snow, leaving huge piles for them to deal with from their driveway. Mr. Johnson stated
concern with the continual increases in property taxes and how it affects them as well as
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3d) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes December 3, 2007
other senior citizens on a retired fixed income. Mayor Jacobs suggested they talk with
Mr. Bultema for possible tax relief options.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 8:39 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs thanked everyone for their comments.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Closed Meeting with City Attorney
9. Communications
Councilmember Finkelstein stated since Hanukkah started this week, he wanted to wish
everyone a Hag sameach (Happy Holidays)!
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 3e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
DECEMBER 10, 2007
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt,
Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger. John Basill arrived at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Council Attorney (Mr. Scott), Public Works
Director (Mr. Rardin), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Administrative Specialist (Ms. Hellekson), Public Works
Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Finance Director
(Mr. DeJong) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
St. Louis Park Authority Housing Commission Members: Steve Fillbrandt, Anne Mavity, Shannon
Bodnar, Catherine Courtney and Judith Moore.
Guest: Jennifer Klennert, Waste Management
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening and Council discussed study session agenda planning.
2. Housing Authority Report
Ms. Schnitker presented the staff report.
Council complimented the Housing Authority Commission for the amount of work they had
accomplished. Mayor Jacobs asked Council if they had any questions or concerns or if the
Commission needed anything further from Council. Ms. Mavity stated that the Housing Summit
provided a lot of information for their strategies on how to work with affordable housing, and
integrating incentives and programs to work in the City.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he didn’t realize all the efforts that went into making
moderate and low income housing available and suggested they look into the possibility of using
small home acquisition and excess land funds to experiment with small home owner occupied
housing for some assistance. He asked if there was a program where the City purchased
foreclosed homes and sold them as-is for future buyers to bring them to code, providing
affordability and the opportunity to work with people. Ms. Schnitker stated the Commission was
looking at: 1) purchasing previous rental property and reselling, 2) a live where you work
matching type grant program, 3) working with housing providers for citizens living within the
City that would like to move up or down in house size, 4) possibly having a specified amount of
condo units being reserved as affordable units, and 5) simply just providing down payment
and/or closing cost assistance for first time homebuyers.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3e) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes December 10, 2007
Councilmember Sanger asked if there were any programs the Commission were not using that
Council should consider. Ms. Schnitker stated they were using a lot of Federal assisted
programs and stated the Section 8 program is being looked at. She further stated the problem
with the Section 8 program is that the properties are usually so high priced that they wouldn’t be
economically feasible. Councilmember Sanger stated concern with foreclosed houses being
bought below their valuation and asked if there would be an opportunity for the City to purchase
the houses and resell them at some type of affordability level. Ms. Schnitker stated they were
researching land trust type houses and that they had been contacting lenders for purchase
opportunities. Ms. Schnitker further stated on the sites she’s viewed that there had not been any
St. Louis Park homes listed on their inventory lists. Councilmember Carver reiterated that there
were very few foreclosures in the City of St. Louis Park, stating its location, location, location
and people want to live in St. Louis Park. Ms. Schnitker stated with the minuet amount of
foreclosures that happened, they have not seen any impact on the value of homes.
Councilmember Carver suggested investigating property tax assistance. Ms. Mavity stated it
would be a challenge to find a strategy for affordability. She also stated that with the other
strategies they’ve used the policy had been to try and attract young families. Councilmember
Carver suggested looking at getting retirees into smaller housing and young families into those
available houses.
Councilmember Paprocki stated Council was geared toward home ownership to help provide
success in the school system. Councilmember Sanger stated that adding condos wouldn’t
enhance kids.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked how the City foreclosure rate compared to the surrounding
suburbs. Ms. Schnitker stated it was about the same as last year.
Council suggested factoring in joint marketing with schools, branding and transportation
marketing strategies to getting people to purchase in the City.
Councilmember Sanger thanked Commissioner Mavity for her six years service on the
Commission.
3. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review and Final Budget Review
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report explaining the updated projected increases for Park Place
Boulevard, West 36th streetscape, 7th and Louisiana, Wooddale Avenue reconstruction and West
36th Street reconstruction.
Mr. Harmening asked if the 2008 projects were acceptable or if Council wanted any changes.
Councilmember Paprocki felt $20,000 for four WiFi cameras would be inefficient and $50,000
for a frisbee golf course was too high and suggested a dog park instead. Mr. DeJong stated with
the current WiFi situation, the cameras were put on hold; however there would potentially be an
alternative funding source through the E911 funds, since it would be dispatch related.
Councilmember Paprocki stated if it didn’t make sense on one budget it didn’t make sense to
take them from another budget, stating he didn’t feel it was a good value.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3e) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes December 10, 2007
Councilmember Sanger asked why the City would pay to upgrade school tennis courts and to
upgrade traffic signals on County roads (CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd). Mr. Harmening stated it
was part of the joint recreation programming. Councilmember Sanger asked if the money for the
tennis courts were a fraction of the costs or the entire amount. Mr. Harmening stated he would
check on the amount. Mr. Rardin stated Council asked to have the Beltline Blvd funds put back
in for future consideration when the bridge crossing was approved. He stated the County was
willing to do one or the other, but Council seemed to want both issues rectified. Mr. Harmening
suggested staff could request the County try to program it into their capital plan.
Councilmember Carver stated if they chose not to do the projects this year, it would need to be
caught up on at some point.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City would be funding the trail crossing by the Three
River’s Park District. Mr. Rardin stated he expected it to be at no expense to the City.
Councilmember Omodt inquired about the MSC expansion. Mr. Harmening explained the
storage bins and security were separate from the MSC expansion, further stating the expansion
amount was a place marker for what the City may have to do because of the MSC impact for
displacing utilities at the fire station #1.
Mr. Rardin explained because of various unknowns in criteria, the replacement parking lots
would most likely be pushed out further than 2008. Mr. Harmening stated staff is looking at
internal ideas for the parking lots and adding more parking availability.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated the City itself and staff has done a great job managing the
assets they have and is looked upon as a rejuvenated City by other suburbs.
Mr. Harmening complimented Mr. Rardin for his 12 years work on inventorying and asset
management.
4. Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report, explaining they were decreasing the responsibility for
public education from the vendor and shift it onto the City. He suggested a staffing person for
field quality assurance and suggested getting proposals with and without the position for
comparisons. He also stated the City Attorneys were in the process of reviewing the RFP’s,
which would require further discussions. Mr. Rardin pointed out the paragraph on the RFP’s
state the City’s designated contacts would be Mr. Merkley or Ms. Hellekson for purposes of the
proposals and that any other unauthorized contact could be subject to company disqualification
from further consideration.
Councilmember Sanger asked for clarification on the private business contract stating limited to
small businesses. Mr. Merkley explained that if it were a small business having the same service
level as residential, they would allow them to use carts. Councilmember Sanger further stated
concern with limiting service. Mr. Merkley stated multi-family and commercial use would be
limited, but residential would not be restricted. Mr. Rardin stated the refuse and yard waste and
recycle are aimed at cart usage. He further stated the multi-family and commercial would be
dumpster business. Ms. Hellekson stated they could correct the wordage. Councilmember
Sanger suggested noting a negotiated discount on the proposals if a vendor won multiple
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3e) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes December 10, 2007
contracts. Councilmember Carver stated it should be listed in their competitive bid.
Councilmember Sanger asked that there be a more defined definition on requiring vendors to use
humans rather than voice mail systems to provide good customer service. Mr. Merkley stated
that was their intent and they would modify the language. Councilmember Sanger asked about
charging penalties for missed pickups. Mr. Rardin stated they have included the industry
standard terminology and by doing that it may cost more. Councilmember Sanger suggested also
adding park recycling to the RFP, further stating she felt the field person should be a City person
versus the vendor’s person. Mr. Harmening stated that decision didn’t need to be made at this
point.
Ms. Klennert asked Council if they would allow alternative RFP proposals. There was Council
consensus to do both and then an alternative proposal.
Mr. Rardin stated their intent was to have a consent report for the December 17th Council
Meeting.
5. Update on Pawnshop Study
Mr. Locke presented the staff report. Mr. Scott stated the discussion was to deal with the land
use aspects of the regulations.
Councilmember Sanger suggested a larger buffer zone to residential and asked if they could
restrict land use for payday loans in the same building, banning access from residential streets
and requiring the pawnshop be located within a certain amount of feet to a police station.
Councilmember Carver asked if there were any pawnshops in Minnetonka. Mr. Locke stated
nothing he’s aware of. He also asked if the St. Louis Park setback requirements would apply to
other surrounding suburb parcels. Mr. Scott stated they would still be regulating the parcel
within the City, however Council could set up the requirements. Councilmember Carver
suggested with the stipulations given, staff should look at the places where pawnshops could
actually exist and any other possible scenarios they should be aware of, eliminating any possible
future challenges.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated the City has a legitimate health and a safety rational for
reviewing the land use controls on the pawnshops. He further stated he felt it was timely needed
and at a minimum they need to protect the health and safety of the residents and the commercial
vitality of the neighborhoods and businesses. Council concurred. Councilmember Basill stated
that because it’s a destination site he felt it was appropriate for these type of requirements.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there were businesses acting as pawnshops but were not
licensed as such. Mayor Jacobs stated it would be an enforcement issue.
Councilmember Omodt asked if there would still be places where the pawnshops could exist
within the City. Mr. Locke stated the C-2 zoned areas.
Councilmember Sanger suggested staff research banning entirely before setting the zoning limits.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he wouldn’t like them banned completely, just require
reasonable land use controls. Mr. Locke stated they could look at that in further detail, but
suggested moving forward with the proposal.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 3e) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes December 10, 2007
There was Council consensus to move forward and to have the Planning Commission review as
soon as possible.
Mr. Locke stated it would be on the January 2nd Planning Commission Meeting and could be
brought back to the January 22nd City Council Meeting.
6. Communications (verbal)
Mr. Harmening reminded Council of the soil vapor-testing meeting on Thursday, December 13,
2007 at 7:30 p.m. and Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. at the Rec. Center and
encouraged Council to ask questions. He further stated the EPA is requiring additional five
properties to be tested.
The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow Advertising Signs on Athletic
Fields.
8. Beehive Relocation Project.
9. Fund Equity Transfers and Fund Closings.
10. Update on Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Award of the 2008 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Grants.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Award of the 2008 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture
Grants.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grant program funds art projects and cultural activities that
build bridges between artists and communities, engage people in creative learning, and promote
artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park. Does the Council agree that the
recommended projects are consistent with the intent of the program?
BACKGROUND:
On August 27, 2007, staff provided Council with an update for the 2008 St. Louis Park Arts &
Culture Grant process. The grant application was released in September in an effort to complete
the review and approval process by December 17, 2007. This will give grantees one full year to
complete their projects.
While the committee received fewer applications than in previous years (13 requests vs. 25
requests in 2007), the overall quality of the applications was excellent. Staff has requested
$20,000 in the 2008 budget for this program and the St. Louis Park Community Foundation
allocated $7,000 at their board meeting on November 21, 2007. Their generous gift equates to a
total of $27,000 available to fund arts related proposals in 2008.
The St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grants review committee, comprised of the Community
Foundation, St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts, city staff and community members, reviewed the
applications and identified applicants whose proposals best met the objectives of the program
and are compatible with the Council’s 18-month strategic direction on Vision for arts, culture
and community aesthetics. Thirteen applicants applied for funding; total requests amounted to
$40,875.
Of the 13 applications received, the committee was able recommend seven arts related projects
for Council’s consideration, totaling $26,165. The committee is not making a recommendation
for the remaining dollars ($835) at this time.
The following is a short summary of each project based on information in the proposals:
Julia Caston - $1,220 to paint an indoor mural at St. Louis Park High School. Ms. Caston, a St.
Louis Park resident and St. Louis Park High School student, will create the mural with the
assistance of students of the high school and others in the community. Ms. Caston was a 2006
grant recipient and successfully completed an outdoor mural at Perspectives Family Center.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4a) Page 2
Subject: 2008 Arts and Culture Grant Program
Margaret Coleman- $1,500 to cast sculptures of plants native to St. Louis Park in resin, plaster
and clay, and host a show open to the public in St. Louis Park displaying the cast sculptures. Ms.
Coleman is also hoping to teach one casting class per week for a month in St. Louis Park to teach
residents the art of slip casting. Ms. Coleman is an emerging Midwest artist currently residing in
New York and returning to the Twin Cities area for the summer of 2008.
Sharon Lyon – $2,950 to run two six-week after school enrichment programs for 7th and 8th
grade students to build creative and technical photographic skills. Participants will be given
simple in-class and out-of-class photo assignments relating to their community and people in
their lives and be involved in a final photo board(s) production and exhibit at St. Louis Park
Junior High School. Students will receive basic camera knowledge, resolution, digital transfer,
composition, lighting, portraiture and critiquing skills. Ms. Lyon, a resident of St. Louis Park, is
a local artist, photographer and instructor.
Jonee Kulman Brigham - $15,555 to produce an interactive environmental art project, The
Children’s Nest Egg, at the Westwood Nature Center. This project, which was first installed and
displayed at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Art-To-Amaze Walk from June through
September 2007, will engage community members through sculptural spatial experience,
engagement in construction milestone events, and by honoring their experiences with nature that
they wish to leave to the next generation by including their observations and poetry into the
artwork. The project will remain at Westwood for a minimum of two years. Ms. Kulman
Brigham is a Twin City architect. The Community Foundation has requested that their $7,000
donation to the Arts and Culture Grant Program for 2008 be devoted entirely to this project.
St. Louis Park Community Theater – $2,000 for start-up funds to formulate a plan for
community theater in St. Louis Park. These funds will be used to hire a professional consultant
with outcomes to include a mission statement, vision statement and short and long-term goals.
The St. Louis Park community will be solicited to participate in an informational gathering
session to derive input from as broad a spectrum as possible. In addition, the committee will
develop a 12-18 month production schedule for St. Louis Park Community Theater.
Laura Powers (36 Arts Magazine) - $440 to assist in the publication and printing of an annual
literary arts magazine of submissions by St. Louis Park High School students. These funds will
assist 36 Arts Magazine in community distribution of the publication in addition to printing
costs. Submissions from this magazine and others are displayed or read at their annual film
festival – Open Mic Coffeehouses.
Susan Lindgren Intermediate Center - $2,500 for art supplies for a canvas mosaic that will
represent the diverse faces and culture of the Susan Lindgren Intermediate Center student
community and a clay relief city mounted on the wall outside the Susan Lindgren Intermediate
Center school office that shows the neighborhoods in St. Louis Park. The portable nature of the
canvas mosaic will allow the work to be moved to other parts of the community for display and
discussion. Students will work on both projects during the school day and in after school and
evening groups.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4a) Page 3
Subject: 2008 Arts and Culture Grant Program
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Program is a budgeted item for 2008 ($20,000 assuming
Council approval of the proposed 2008 budget on December 17, 2007) and a $7,000 grant from
the St. Louis Park Community Foundation. St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts provides technical
assistance to the program and its recipients.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Award of the 2008 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Grants follows the St. Louis Park Strategic
Directions 18-Month Guide adopted on March 19, 2007 by committing to promoting and
integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including
implementation where appropriate.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4a) Page 4
Subject: 2008 Arts and Culture Grant Program
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
MOTION TO AUTHORIZE AWARD OF ST. LOUIS PARK ARTS & CULTURE
GRANTS TO JULIA CASTON, MARGARET COLEMAN, SHARON LYON, JONEE
KULMAN BRIGHAM, ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY THEATER, LAURA POWERS
(36 ARTS MAGAZINE) AND SUSAN LINDGREN INTERMEDIATE CENTER
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, the St. Louis Park Community Foundation and
Friends of the Arts worked together to create and support a $27,000 grant program to fund art
projects and cultural activities that build bridges between artists and communities, engage people
in creative learning, and promote artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park;
and
WHEREAS, thirteen applicants responded to the call for proposals and were evaluated
by a committee comprised of representatives of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, St.
Louis Park Friends of the Arts and the city, and community members; and
WHEREAS, the committee recommends the City Council fund seven (7) grant proposals
for a total of $26,165: Julia Caston, Margaret Coleman, Sharon Lyon, Jonee Kulman Brigham,
St. Louis Park Community Theater, Laura Powers (36 Arts Magazine) and Susan Lindgren
Intermediate Center.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, authorizes execution of grant agreements with the following
organizations based on the review committee’s recommendations and the applicants’ proposals.
1. Julia Caston is awarded a maximum of $1,220.
2. Margaret Coleman is awarded a maximum of $1,500.
3. Sharon Lyon is awarded a maximum of $2,950.
4. Jonee Kulman Brigham is awarded a maximum of $15,555.
5. St. Louis Park Community Theater is awarded a maximum of $2,000.
6. Laura Powers (36 Arts Magazine) is awarded a maximum of $440.
7. Susan Lindgren Intermediate Center is awarded a maximum of $2,500.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Approve Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting the equipment replacement schedule budgeted for
2008 and authorize staff to acquire equipment as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
By Statute, Charter, and Ordinance, all purchases over $50,000 must be authorized by the Council
and are purchased in accordance with public contracting laws. Procurement of vehicles is
accomplished in a variety of ways. After equipment purchases are authorized by Council, the City
can either call for bids or purchase through cooperative purchasing ventures whereby other agencies
have established equipment contracts (i.e. State of Minnesota contracts, Hennepin County contracts,
etc.).
Replacement of equipment costing less than $50,000 does not require Council authorization. Staff
replaces this type of equipment by purchasing it through State or County contracts or by obtaining
competitive quotes.
FINAL LIST FOR REPLACEMENT:
The final list for year 2008 contains 30 units estimated to cost (gross) $927,260 (see attached list). Of
those, there are four vehicles that will cost close to or more than $50,000 and require Council
authorization to purchase.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
In the first quarter of 2007, Parks and Recreation staff met with each equipment-using department to
discuss short term and long term planned replacements. Participants recommend which vehicles to
replace on the basis of age, mileage, downtime for repairs and future work assessments. From this
discussion, Parks and Recreation revised the planned replacement list. From this list, replacements
were placed in the 2008 proposed budget. The source of funding for these replacements is the
Revolving Equipment Replacement Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Some gas powered vehicles have been replaced with hybrids as per environmental consideration.
Attachments: Resolution for 2008 Equipment Replacement
2008 Equipment Purchase Spreadsheet
Prepared by: Dennis Millerbernd, Equipment Superintendent
Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manger
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4b) Page 2
Subject: Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) 2008
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS,
AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR
YEAR 2008 MAJOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a
report from the Director of Parks and Recreation related to major equipment scheduled for
replacement during year 2008,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, MN, that:
1. The Director of Parks and Recreation Report regarding year 2008 equipment replacement is
hereby accepted.
2. The following four (4) pieces of equipment costing close to or more than $50,000 are
authorized for replacement or addition during year 2008:
Old
Vehicle
Unit No.
New Vehicle Description
Estimated Cost
9315 1 Ton, 4 x 4 Crew Cab Utility Truck $56,652
8001 1 ton, Media Step Van $120,000
9720 Asphalt Paver $89,152
N/A 3 yd. Truck Mounted Sewer Vac $183,180
3. The Director of Parks and Recreation is further authorized to acquire all year 2008 equipment
purchases as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance through the following methods: by
bid, by purchase from State of Minnesota Contract, Hennepin County Contract, or by
quotations.
4. The necessary specifications for year 2008 equipment purchases as prepared under the
direction of the Director of Parks and Recreation are approved.
5. When necessary, the City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in
the official newspaper, appropriate trade journals, magazines and bulletins the advertisement
for bid, said equipment listed above under said specifications. Advertisements shall appear
not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City
Clerk, and that no bid will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five
(5) percent of the amount of the bid.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4b) Page 3
Subject: Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) 2008
6. Bids received for the equipment listed above shall be tabulated by the Director of Parks and
Recreation who shall report her tabulation and recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
No.Old Unit No.Old DescriptionRpl. Cycle Age Primary Department Primary Division New Vehicle Description Est. Cost 2008 1 9315 TRUCK, 1T, 4X4, CREW CAB, UTILITY 10 15 FIRE ADMIN.TRUCK, 1T, 4X4, CREW CAB, UTILITY $56,652*2 0012 TRUCK, 1/4T 4X4 SUV7 8 INSPECTIONSBUILDING CODES FWD SUV, HYBRID$24,8253 0016 TRUCK, 1/4T 4X4 SUV8 8 INSPECTIONSBUILDING CODES FWD SUV, HYBRID$24,9314 0017 TRUCK, 1/4T 4X4 SUV8 8 INSPECTIONSBUILDING CODES FWD SUV, HYBRID$24,9315 8001 TRUCK, 1T, MEDIA STEP VAN15 27 INFO. RESOURCES CIVIC TVTRUCK, 1T, MULTI-MEDIA TRUCK $120,000*6 0025 TRUCK,3/4T,4X4,CREW CAB8 8 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE TRUCK,1T,4X4,CREW CAB, S BOX $29,5997 0718 SKID-STEER LOADER1 1 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE SKID-STEER LOADER$3,3478 7719T TRAILER20 31 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE TRAILER, 20', SPRING ASSIST $12,0009 8837T TRAILER20 20 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE TRAILER, 20', SPRING ASSIST $12,00010 9120B BROOM15 17 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE BROOM$5,83511 9812 ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE10 10 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE UTILITY, ALL TERAIN VEHICLE$18,08812 9820 MOWER, GROUNDSMASTER 72"10 10 PARKS & RECREATION REC CENTER MOWER, Z-TURN, DIESEL$19,41413 9905 TRUCK,1T,2X4, UTILITY10 9 PARKS & RECREATION NATURE CENTER TRUCK,1T,2X4, UTILITY$19,89214 N/A N/A5 N/A PARKS & RECREATION NATURE CENTER GOLF CART, ELECTRIC, USED$3,20015 0009 SEDAN,FULL-SIZE, SQUAD8 8 POLICE INVESTIGATIONS SEDAN,FULL-SIZE, UNMARKED $23,84716 0601 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05317 0602 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05318 0603 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05319 0604 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05320 0605 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05321 9705 TRUCK,1/4T,4X4 SUV8 11 POLICE ADMIN.TRUCK,1/2T,4X4 SUV$35,27522 0019 TRUCK, 1/2T, 2X4 EXT CAB10 8 PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFICTRUCK, 1T, 4X4 REG CAB$26,24223 0726 SKID-STEER LOADER1 1 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS SKID-STEER LOADER$3,34724 0727 ALL-STEER UTILITY VEHICLE1 1 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS ALL-STEER UTILITY VEHICLE$4,53225 8851T TRAILER20 20 PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFICTRAILER$2,000269206TRUCK, FLUSHER (purchased in 2007) 1516PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONSTRUCK, FLUSHER ($118,450)$0*27 9720 PAVER, ASPHALT10 11 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS PAVER, ASPHALT$89,152*28 9813 TRUCK,1/4T, 4X2, EXT CAB8 10 PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES TRUCK,1/4T, 4X2, EXT CAB$25,72729 9622T TRAILER20 3 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS 20 TON PAVING TRAILER$19,50030 N/A N/A10 N/A PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS PLOW, FRONT-END, 9', W / WINGS $4,47931 N/A 3 YD. TRUCK MOUNTED SEWER VAC N/A N/A PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES 3 YD. TRUCK MOUNTED SEWER VAC $183,180* Total 927,260$ Notes:* For units estimated near or over $50,000; request City Council to authorize purchase.2008 Equipment PurchasesUpdated: 12/12/2007Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4b) Subject: Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) 2008
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Gambling Premise Permit Renewal for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Resolution authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for Hopkins
Raspberry Festival Association, Inc., operating at Al’s Bar, 3912 Excelsior Boulevard.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the renewal of an existing premises permit for the Hopkins
Raspberry Festival Association to allow them to undertake a pull tab operation at Al’s Bar for
another two year period?
BACKGROUND:
The Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association has submitted an application for renewal of a
Gambling Premises Permit to conduct lawful gambling operations in the form of pull-tabs inside
Al’s Bar, 3912 Excelsior Boulevard in St. Louis Park. This organization has operated in the City
since April of 2002. The premises permit renewal duration is January 1, 2008 – December 31,
2009. (All premises permits are issued by the State for a two year term.)
The Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association currently operates lawful gambling sales in two
locations; one in St. Louis Park at Al’s Bar, and one in Hopkins at Decoy’s. As a platinum
sponsor to the Parktacular celebration in St. Louis Park, the Association has donated a total of
$10,407.72 from their 2007 gambling proceeds received at the Al’s Bar location.
All current requirements for issuance of the license have been met. The Police Department has
conducted a background investigation on the organization, its officers and related personnel and
found no past issues/concerns with legal pull-tab sales at this location.
Should the City Council approve the application, the resolution of approval will be forwarded to
the State Gambling Control Board who is responsible for issuing the license permit.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Non Applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Non Applicable
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4c) Page 2
Subject: Gambling License Renewal
RESOLUTION NO. 07-______
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING TO BE CONDUCTED BY
HOPKINS RASPBERRY FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
AT AL’S BAR, 3912 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
JANUARY 1, 2008 – DECEMBER 31, 2009
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 15 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless
it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization
submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed
above meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby
approved.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Tree Trimming 2008 Ostvig Contract
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a contract in the amount of $60,000.00 with Ostvig Tree, Inc. for 2008 tree
pruning (trimming).
Ostivg Tree, Inc. successfully performed the 2006 and 2007 boulevard tree pruning contracts for
the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park will continue tree trimming in 2008. It will be the fourth year of
contract rotation boulevard tree pruning (trimming). The goal of this contract is to increase the
safety, health and function of all boulevard trees by raising low branches, removing deadwood
and eliminating future impediments to growth. This contract only covers boulevard trees; Parks
and City-owned property trees are rotationally pruned by Parks Maintenance Staff. Tree
trimming on private property is the responsibility of the homeowners.
During the 2006 budget process, this contract was let for bid, with five companies submitting
proposals for this service. Ostvig Tree, Inc. presented the lowest responsible bid and was
awarded the 2006 contract. This contract was renewed in 2007 and contains a clause for renewal
through 2008, at the same costs and specifications as the 2006 contract, if agreed upon by all
parties. All pertinent parties have agreed to renew the 2006/2007 contract(s) for 2008.
Beginning approximately January 1 and continuing until March 31, 2008, the 2008 rotational
pruning will be performed, initially finishing four blocks in the Oak Hill neighborhood and
continuing west through the Aquila, Minnehaha and Cobblecrest neighborhoods. Ideally, pruning
should occur on each tree approximately every seven years to ensure health, function and safety
standards. This pruning will support this 7 year goal.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
With the renewal clause enacted from the 2006 Boulevard Tree Pruning Contract with Ostvig
Tree, Inc., the contract bid amount remains at the 2006/2007 level of $83.79 per hour (with
specifications contained in the renewed contract) in an amount not to exceed $60,000. This
amount is accounted for in the City’s budget.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4d) Page 2
Subject: Tree Trimming 2008 Ostvig Contract
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Neighborhood Tree Trimming Map
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4d)
Subject: Tree Trimming 2008 Ostvig Contract Page 3
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #:4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Final payment to Standard Sidewalk, Inc. for alley paving of 2900 block Raleigh/Salem Avenues
-Project No. 2007-2900
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $3,557.77 for alley
paving in the 2900 block Raleigh/Salem Avenues – City Project No. 2007-2900 with Standard
Sidewalk, Inc., City Contract No. 31-07.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
N/A
BACKGROUND:
At its December 18, 2006 meeting, the City Council approved the Project Report for construction
of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenue, and the Public Hearing and
the Assessment Hearing was held on January 16, 2007. The project was awarded to Standard
Sidewalk at the April 9, 2007 City Council Meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for the concrete alley paving is to be assessed to the abutting property owners. A total
of 19 properties will be assessed. The costs will be apportioned in accordance with the City’s
special assessment policy with direct and indirect benefits.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4e Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution 2900 Raleigh-Salem
RESOLUTION NO. 07-___
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
ALLEY PAVING
2900 BLOCK RALEIGH/SALEM AVENUES
CITY PROJECT NO. 2007-2900
CONTRACT NO. 31-07
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated April 9, 2007, Standard Sidewalk, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the alley paving in the 2900 block Raleigh/Salem Avenues, as per
Contract No. 31-07.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed
to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $62,561.55
Change Order 3,700.00
Overrun 4,893.83
Previous Payments 67,597.61
Balance Due $ 3,557.77
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Amendment No. 2 to DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement A48775/A88026
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement
A48775/A88026 as drafted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, dated December
5, 2007.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
On July 23, 2003, the State of Minnesota, through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
issued a grant in an amount of $1,600,000 to the City of St. Louis Park for the purpose of
completing various flood mitigation projects within the City. Receipt of the grant monies
requires a 50% match from the City for identified flood protection projects. These projects have
included, among others, Lamplighter Pond and most recently Dakota Park. The grant
agreement’s original amount was increased to $1,900,000 and the expiration date of June 20,
2006 was extended to December 31, 2007 in May of 2006 (Amendment No. 1).
After the initial grant was established in 2003, staff became aware of additional flood problem
areas that were also eligible under the criteria established. At the request of the City, additional
grant money in the amount of $1,128,000 was earmarked by the State for the City in a second
grant.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Since 2003, the City has completed many of the projects originally identified in the grant, but is
still in the process of completing others, including Dakota Park. In addition, other projects
related to Minnehaha Creek may be forthcoming, pending completion of further Creek modeling
and evaluations. Amendment No. 2, as drafted by the DNR, essentially combines the two
legislatively approved grants into a single total amount of $2,728,000, and extends the City’s
deadline for completing projects to December 31, 2010.
To date, the City has been reimbursed (received) over one-half of the total amount of grant
money allocated to the city. We expect to use the remaining grant funds for completion of the
Dakota Park improvements, some smaller projects previously identified, and perhaps others
depending on any further applications received along with costs associated with completion of
the Minnehaha Creek modeling study.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4f Page 2
Subject: Amendment No. 2 to DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement A48775/A88026
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
Projects eligible for reimbursement under the Flood Mitigation Grant Program are reimbursed
50% from the DNR grant and 50% from the City by the Stormwater Utility Fund. The Capital
Improvement Program (C.I.P.) has annually anticipated the required City match for identified
projects since initiation of the program in 2003.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachment: Amendment No. 2, DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement
A48775/A88026
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Change Orders to Contract 51-07 – 2007 MSA Street Rehabilitation Project– City Project No.
2006-1101 and 2006-1102
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 and No. 2 to Contract No. 51-07 – 2007 MSA Street
Rehabilitation Project– City Project No. 2006-1101 and 2006-1102
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
City Council approval is required whenever contract changes are requested to Council-
authorized contracts.
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved the 2007 MSA Street Rehabilitation Project– City Project No. 2006-1101
and 2006-1102. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Midwest Asphalt Corporation
on May 21, 2007 in the amount of $625,674.09. The project involves work on Dakota Avenue
from Minnetonka Blvd to south of W. 32nd Street, and on W. 38th Street between Excelsior
Boulevard and France Avenue. Dakota Avenue was reconstructed while W. 38th Street was
rehabilitated having only the asphalt pavement replaced along with minor drainage system and
sidewalk repairs.
During the construction of the project, extra work was encountered. To prevent project delays,
the Engineering Staff authorized the work to proceed at negotiated unit prices for each change
order. Change Order No. 1 was executed by staff and has been paid in a previous partial
payment to the contractor. Change Order No. 2 will be paid in the final payment to the
contractor. Final payment is anticipated to be approved by Council at their January 2, 2008
meeting date.
Change Order No. 1 is for extra water main work requested by the Utility Department, stump
grinding, and removal of a wood retaining wall in the amount of $15,495.00.
Change Order No. 2 is for extra work installing a hydrant, reconstructing a storm sewer manhole
and catch basin, additional traffic control, and payment for bituminous paving incentives allowed
in the contract. This additional work amounts to $17,065.85.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The additional work will be paid with monies from our Municipal State Aid Funds and Utility
Funds which financed these projects.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4g Page 2
Subject: Change Orders to Contact 51-07 – 2007 MSA Street Rehabilitation Project 2006-1101 & 2006-1102
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Change Order No. 1 and No. 2
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4g Page 3
Subject: Change Orders to Contact 51-07 – 2007 MSA Street Rehabilitation Project 2006-1101 & 2006-1102
Contract No.: 51-07
Change Order No.: 1 Date: July 20, 2007
Project Name: 2007 MSA Street Rehabilitation
Project Location: West 38th Street, Dakota Avenue
Contractor: Midwest Asphalt Corporation P.O. Box 5477
Hopkins, MN 55343 Phone No. 952-937-8033
Type of Work: Watermain Replacement.
Amount of Original Contract: $625,647.09
Description of Work to be Added or Deleted: Utility Department requested the contractor to install a 12” Gate Valve
Manhole on West 38th Street at Joppa Avenue. Removed and installed new 8” Gate Valve & Riser on Dakota Avenue at
32nd Street that was not operating. Removed existing wood retaining wall on Dakota Avenue. Grubbed existing stump
on 38th Street at Joppa Avenue to lower grade for new sidewalk.
Unit Contract As Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Furnish and Install 12” Gate
Valve Manhole L.S. $11,100.00 1.0 $11,100.00
Furnish and Install 8” Gate
Valve/ Riser L.S. $3,795.00 1.0 $3,795.00
Removal of wood retaining wall L.S. $300.00 1.0 $300.00
Grubbing (existing stump) L.S. $300.00 1.0 $300.00
Total with Revised Quantity $15,495.00
Less Contract Amount
Total Change Order No. 1 Amount: $15,495.00
Original Contract Price: $625,647.09
Previous Change Orders (None) 0.00
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $641,142.09
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified
in original contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
Project Inspector Date City Engineer Date
Approved:
Director of Public Works Date City Manager Date
We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract specifications at
the above stated price.
Approved: _________________________________ __________________________________________
Date Authorized Contractor Signature
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4g Page 4
Subject: Change Orders to Contact 51-07 – 2007 MSA Street Rehabilitation Project 2006-1101 & 2006-1102
Contract No.: 51-07
Change Order No.: 2 Date: November 30, 2007
Project Name: 2007 MSA Street Rehabilitation
Project Location: West 38th Street, Dakota Avenue
Contractor: Midwest Asphalt Corporation P.O. Box 5477
Hopkins, MN 55343 Phone No. 952-937-8033
Type of Work: Additional watermain work, Storm sewer structure repairs, Installation of salvaged street signs, Extra
traffic control signage and Bituminous incentive.
Amount of Original Contract: $625,647.09
Description of Work to be Added: (Extra for time spent on hydrant at 38th Street and Joppa Avenue. City water
department could not get watermain shut down.) (Rebuilt existing catch basin and storm sewer, due to deterioration,
on Dakota Avenue at 31st Street.) (Salvaged and reinstalled existing street and stop signs that were removed during
the construction.) (Additional traffic control signs for sidewalk closed and type 3 barricades were needed.) (Contract
allows for bituminous density incentives and penalties as indicated in the specifications and as required by State
Aid.)
Unit Contract As Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Hydrant at 38th Street and Joppa
Avenue L.S. $3,893.04 1.0 $3,893.04
Rebuild Catch Basin (Dakota
Avenue and 31st Street) L.S. $1,444.33 1.0 $1,444.33
Reconstruct Manhole (Dakota
Avenue and 31st Street) L.S. $1,013.38 1.0 $1,013.38
Salvage and Reinstall Signs L.S. $940.00 1.0 $940.00
Extra Traffic Control Signs L.S. $2,083.22 1.0 $2,083.22
Bituminous Density Incentive L.S. $7,691.88 1.0 $7,691.88
Total with Revised Quantity $17,065.85
Total Change Order No. 2 Amount: $17,065.85
Original Contract Price: $625,647.09
Previous Change Orders (#1) $15,495.00
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $658,207.94
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified
in original contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
Project Inspector Date City Engineer Date
Approved:
Director of Public Works Date City Manager Date
We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract specifications at
the above stated price.
Approved: _________________________________ __________________________________________
Date Authorized Contractor Signature
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Change Orders to Contract 52-06 - Lake Street Reconstruction Project– City Project No. 2006-
0100 and 2005-1101.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Change Orders No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to Contract No. 52-06 - Lake Street
Reconstruction Project– City Project No. 2006-0100 and 2005-1101.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
City Council approval is required whenever contract changes are requested to Council-
authorized contracts.
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved the 2006 Lake Street Reconstruction Project– City Project No. 2006-0100
and 2005-1101. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Hardrives, Inc. on April 20,
2006 in the amount of $1,568,575.00. The project involved street reconstruction work on Lake
Street from Minnetonka Boulevard to Walker Street and mill and overlay work on Wooddale
Avenue from Lake Street to T.H. 7 and on Dakota Avenue from W. 33rd Street to Lake Street.
During the construction of the project, extra work was encountered. To prevent project delays,
the Engineering Staff authorized the work to proceed at negotiated unit prices for each change
order. Change Orders No. 1, 2 and 3 were executed by staff and have been paid in previous
partial payments to the contractor in 2006 and early 2007. Change Order No. 4 will be paid in
the final payment to the contractor. Final payment is anticipated to be approved by Council at
their January 7, 2008 meeting date.
Change Order No. 1 is for extra utility work including storm sewer and water main work in the
amount of $14,188.20.
Change Order No. 2 is for unanticipated traffic signal system repair at Zarthan Avenue and Lake
Street in the amount of $16,894.00.
Change Order No. 3 is for additional road striping, street light repair, stairway handrail, chain
link fence repair and sanitary sewer service repair in the amount of $7,260.02.
Change Order No. 4 is for additional road work to match the alignment of the new railroad
crossing surface at Lake Street and Library Lane and for payment of bituminous paving
incentives allowed in the contract. This additional work amounts to $15,268.35.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4h Page 2
Subject: Change Orders to Contract 52-06 – Lake Street Reconstruction – Project 2006-0100
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The additional work will be paid with monies from our Municipal State Aid Funds and Utility
Funds which financed these projects.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Change Order No. 1, 2, 3 and 4
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4h Page 3
Subject: Change Orders to Contract 52-06 – Lake Street Reconstruction – Project 2006-0100
Contract No.: 52-06
Change Order No.: 1 Date: July 24, 2006
Project Name: Lake Street Reconstruction Project
Project Location: Lake Street
Contractor: Hardrives INC. 14475 Quiram Drive
Rogers, MN 55374 Phone No. 763-428-8886
Type of Work: Storm Sewer and Watermain Replacement.
Amount of Original Contract: $1,568,575.00
Description of Work to be Added or Deleted: Replace three proposed 2x3 Catch Basins with 48” Diameter
Catch Basin Manholes. F&I 48“ Diameter water valve manhole and install 12” gate valve and fittings.
Remove existing 6” Gate Valve and Box. Insulate two water services at retaining wall.
Unit Contract As Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
48” Catch Basin Manhole EACH $4,180.00 3.0 $12,540.00
Construct Drainage Structure,
Type B EACH $2,975.00 9 $26,775.00 6.0 $17,850.00
F & I 48” Gate Valve Manhole EACH $4,785.00 1.0 $4,785.00
Install 12” Gate Valve & Fittings EACH $2,497.00 1.0 $2,497.00
Remove 6” Gate Valve and Box EACH $550.00 4.0 $2,200.00
Watermain Service Insulation S.F. $17.05 64.0 $1091.20
Total with Revised Quantity $40,963.20
Less Contract Amount $26,775.00
Total Change Order No. 1 Amount: $14,188.20
Original Contract Price: $1,568,575.00
Previous Change Orders (None) 0.00
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $1,582,763.20
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified
in original contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
Project Inspector Date City Engineer Date
Approved:
Director of Public Works Date City Manager Date
We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract specifications at
the above stated price.
Approved: _________________________________ __________________________________________
Date Authorized Contractor Signature
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4h Page 4
Subject: Change Orders to Contract 52-06 – Lake Street Reconstruction – Project 2006-0100
Contract No.: 52-06
Change Order No.: 2 Date: July 24, 2006
Project Name: Lake Street Reconstruction Project
Project Location: Lake Street
Contractor: Hardrives INC. 14475 Quiram Drive
Rogers, MN 55374 Phone No. 763-428-8886
Type of Work: Signal System Repair (Zarthan Avenue)
Amount of Original Contract: $1,568,575.00
Description of Work to be Added or Deleted: Replaced Signal System Crossing at Zarthan Avenue includes
replacing two handholes, 3” rigid Steel Conduit and replace existing wires as needed. Install two NMC Loop
Detectors.
Unit Contract As Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Repair Signal System Crossing L.S. $10,511.00 1.0 $10,511.00
NMC Loop Detector 6x6 EACH $3,191.50 2.0 $6,383.00
Total with Revised Quantity $16,894.00
Total Change Order No. 2 Amount: $16,894.00
Original Contract Price: $1,568,575.00
Previous Change Orders C.O #1 $14,188.20
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $1,599,657.28
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified
in original contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
Project Inspector Date City Engineer Date
Approved:
Director of Public Works Date City Manager Date
We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract specifications at
the above stated price.
Approved: _________________________________ __________________________________________
Date Authorized Contractor Signature
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4h Page 5
Subject: Change Orders to Contract 52-06 – Lake Street Reconstruction – Project 2006-0100
Contract No.: 52-06
Change Order No.: 3 Date: December 12, 2006
Project Name: Lake Street Reconstruction Project
Project Location: Lake Street
Contractor: Hardrives INC. 14475 Quiram Drive
Rogers, MN 55374 Phone No. 763-428-8886
Type of Work: Various additions to Lake Street and Wooddale Avenue Project.
Amount of Original Contract: $1,568,575.00
Description of Work to be added: Repair sewer service at 5900 Lake Street (Catholic Church). Unmarked 6”
clay tile sewer service hit while digging in new street light base. Furnished new chain link fence material.
Added 4” Solid Line White and 4” Broken Line Yellow on Lake Street. Added 1 ½” Hand Rail to steps at
retaining wall. Removed and installed new street light base at RR tracks damaged by C.P. Rail. Installed
photocell on existing street light cabinet at Wooddale Avenue.
Unit Contract As Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
Repair Sewer Service Line L.S. $727.61 1.0 $727.61
4’ Chain Link Materials L.S. $649.13 1.0 $649.13
4” Solid Line White - Epoxy L.F. $0.33 5,498.0 $1,814.34
4” Broken Line Yellow - Epoxy L.F. $0.33 460.0 $151.80
1 ½” O.D. Pipe Hand Rail EACH $585.75 2.0 $1,171.50
Repair Street Light Base L.S. $2,286.17 1.0 $2,286.17
Install Photocell on Street Light Cabinet L.S. $459.47 1.0 $459.47
Total Change Order No. 3 Amount: $7,260.02
Original Contract Price: $1,568,575.00
Previous Change Orders C.O #1 and #2 $31,082.20
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $1,609,917.22
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified in original
contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
Project Inspector Date City Engineer Date
Approved:
Director of Public Works Date City Manager Date
We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract specifications at
the above stated price.
Approved: _________________________________ __________________________________________
Date Authorized Contractor Signature
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4h Page 6
Subject: Change Orders to Contract 52-06 – Lake Street Reconstruction – Project 2006-0100
Contract No.: 52-06
Change Order No.: 4 Date: December 28, 2006
Project Name: Lake Street Reconstruction Project
Project Location: Lake Street
Contractor: Hardrives INC. 14475 Quiram Drive
Rogers, MN 55374 Phone No. 763-428-8886
Type of Work: Extra curb removal and replacement at CP Rail crossing at Library Lane.
Amount of Original Contract: $1,568,575.00
Description of Work to be added: Additional construction costs to match new concrete railroad crossing at Lake
Street and Library Lane that the City requested Canadian Pacific Railroad Company to install.
Contract allows for bituminous density incentives and penalties as indicated in the specifications and as required by
State Aid.
Unit Contract As Revised by CO
Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
CP Railroad Crossing
realignment L.S. $10,839.80 1 $10,839.80
Bituminous Density Incentive L.S. $4,428.55 $4,428.55
Total Change Order No. 4 Amount: $15,268.35
Original Contract Price: $1,568,575.00
Previous Change Orders C.O #1,#2 and #3 $38,342.22
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $1,622,185.57
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified in original
contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
Project Inspector Date City Engineer Date
Approved:
Director of Public Works Date City Manager Date
We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract specifications at
the above stated price.
Approved: _________________________________ __________________________________________
Date Authorized Contractor Signature
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Authorize Proposals for Residential Solid Waste Collection Services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize staff to solicit proposals for residential recycling collection services and
residential refuse & yard waste collection services for the period of October 1, 2008 to
September 30, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
History
Staff and Council have met numerous times over the past six months to discuss solid waste
program changes, delivery and contracting options for collection services, and environmental
stewardship.
Most recently, at the December 10, 2007 Study Session staff presented Council with draft
Request for Proposals (RFP’s) for delivery of residential solid waste collection services for the
next five-year contract period. During the session staff identified several key issues and
answered Council questions. The key issues included: how best to staff the quality assurance
field position; the need for including ex parte communication language in the contract; whether it
would be necessary to follow the Organized Collection statute [MN Statute 115A.94] for any or
all of the RFP’s; and changing the responsibility for public education from contractors to the
city.
Council directed staff to structure the RFP’s to obtain costs associated with contracting out the
quality assurance field position so this issue can be evaluated during the negotiation / contract
award process. Council agreed with the City Attorney’s suggestion to add ex parte language to
restrict communications by Proposers to authorized staff only. Staff indicated to Council that
they had plans to further discuss Organized Collection requirements with the City Attorney and
Council directed staff to proceed as guided by the City Attorney. Council supported shifting the
primary responsibility for public education to city staff.
Residential Recycling and Refuse & Yard Waste Collection
Council’s review of the RFP’s resulted in questions and discussion on the following items:
penalties for missed pickups, the need for customer service calls to be handled by a “live” person
during contract hours, and a desire to include collection of the recycling from city parks if
possible. As a result, staff has included clarifying provisions in the RFP’s which require
customer service calls to be handled by a “live” person during contract hours. Further, staff
reviewed recycling collection operations in our Parks and determined that this service need is not
compatible with residential collection; however, it can be and will be included in the Multi-
family and Commercial refuse and recycling collection services expected to be developed and
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4i Page
Subject: Authorize Proposals for Residential Solids Waste Collection Services
2
implemented separately from the residential services. Finally, based on Council input at the
meeting, staff did not change penalty provisions for or the definition of missed pickups.
Council also suggested the RFP’s be structured in a way that the city could receive cost savings
if a Proposer were awarded more than one contract (i.e., economy of scale savings for the city).
After further discussion, Council decided if Proposers submitted individual proposals for
Residential Recycling collection and Residential Refuse & Yard Waste collection services they
could also submit an alternate proposal combining all these services into one proposal / contract.
Organized Collection Statute Evaluation
Following the December 12th meeting, staff and the City Attorney discussed “Subd. 4. Cities
and towns; notice; planning” of the Organized Collection statute [MN Statute 115A.94]. It
was felt the City had complied with these requirements when previously establishing the current
citywide residential collection services and it should not be necessary to repeat this as no
significant changes to these services were being proposed by the city. However, it was felt the
requirements of “Subd. 4.” should be followed to develop and implement the Multi-family and
Commercial RFP services the city is considering, even though these will be optional services
(not required or mandated) offered by the city. As a result, it will be necessary for staff to
evaluate and revise the process and timeline for developing and offering Multi-family and
Commercial refuse and recycling collection services. It is presumed at this time that the process
and schedule for this will be separate from the residential collection services. Staff will provide
a new process and timeline for this at a future study session.
SCHEDULE / TIMELINE
Residential Recycling and Refuse & Yard Waste Collection
Council authorizes staff to solicit RFP’s December 17, 2007
Send information letters to prospective haulers December 18, 2007
Begin sending RFPs upon Request December 18, 2007
Advertisement for RFP Published in Sun Sailor December 27, 2007
Notice of Intent Due, Questions Due January 8, 2008
Pre-Proposal Meeting January 10, 2008
Proposal Submittal Due January 25, 2008
Complete Proposal Evaluation February 6, 2008
Staff Complete Evaluations and Negotiations February 15, 2008
Council Review of Proposal at Study Session February 25, 2008
Council Award Contract March 3, 2008
Notice to Proceed March 10, 2008
Contract Start Date October 1, 2008
Multi-family and Commercial Collection
To be determined
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As noted in previous meetings, this approach (3 separate contracts and expanded services) will
result in additional staffing needs. However, there will not be any cost implications to the
General Fund resulting from any program or staffing changes, as the Solid Waste Enterprise
Fund and related collection fees will cover these costs.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 - Item 4i Page
Subject: Authorize Proposals for Residential Solids Waste Collection Services
3
VISION:
The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the
City Council:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Community members are responsible stewards of the environment and realize their actions
today influence the greater ecology inherited by future generations.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best
practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachments: RFP’s on file at City Hall
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4j
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grant Funds - 2006-2007.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council to make a motion to approve resolution award of $2,000 to St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts to
provide on-site arts instruction and activities to residents at Hamilton House.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support giving remaining 2006-07 grant dollars to St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts to
provide on-site arts instruction and activities to residents at Hamilton House?
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Committee received a request from Hamilton House to provide on-site
arts and multi-cultural programming for residents. The request arrived after the 2008 grant deadline so it
was not eligible for 2008 arts grant funding.
However, the city and the St. Louis Park Community Foundation have remaining dollars from the 2006-
2007 arts grants that could be used to fund this request, which is compatible with the grant program
guidelines. City staff asked Planning and Development Director Margaret Rog, St. Louis Park Friends of
the Arts, to evaluate the Hamilton House proposal. Ms. Rog reviewed the proposal and indicated that the
Friends of the Arts would be willing to coordinate this arts program for Hamilton House.
Therefore, the Review Committee is recommending that St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts be granted
$2,000 to oversee and implement this program. Housing Supervisor Michele Schnitker and staff from
Vail Place are supportive of the request and the involvement of St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts.
Programming could begin as soon as December 2007.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grant program has remaining dollars from the original authorizations
in 2006 and 2007 because the awarded grants totaled less that the amount budgeted each year.
$20,000 allocated in 2006. Remaining dollars: $166.86
$27,639 allocated in 2007 ($20,000 city, $10,000 St. Louis Park Community Foundation.
Remaining dollars: $2,361 (assuming that 2007 grant applicants use maximum grant award).
Total remaining from 2006-2007 original authorizations: $2,527.86.
Staff is proposing that $2,000 be awarded to St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts, which leaves a balance of
$527.86 in the 2007 allocation.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Award of the 2008 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Grants follows the St. Louis Park Strategic Directions
18-Month Guide adopted on March 19, 2007 by committing to promoting and integrating arts, culture and
community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Attachments: Resolution
Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 Page 2
Subject: St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grant Funds - 2006-2007 (Item 4j)
RESOLUTION NO. 07-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT AWARD OF $2,000 TO ST. LOUIS PARK
FRIENDS OF THE ARTS TO PROVIDE ON-SITE ARTS INSTRUCTION AT
HAMILTON HOUSE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Community Foundation and St.
Louis Park Friends of the Arts worked together to create a grant program to fund art projects and
cultural activities that build bridges between artists and communities, engage people in creative
learning, and promote artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park, and
WHEREAS, sixteen grants totaling $46,872.14 have been awarded since the grant
program’s inception in 2006; and
WHEREAS, there is $2,527.86 in remaining dollars from the 2006 and 2007 arts grant
cycles that has not been allocated, and
WHEREAS, Hamilton House is seeking $2,000 in arts funding to provide on-site arts
and multi-cultural programming for residents starting in December 2007; and
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts is a non-profit organization dedicated to
organizing, promoting, and enhancing the arts in St. Louis Park and has agreed to work directly
with Hamilton House on their request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, authorizes execution of a grant agreement in the amount of $2,000 from
the original authorizations of 2006-2007 St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grants with the St. Louis
Park Friends of the Arts to provide on-site arts and multi-cultural programming for residents of
Hamilton House.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17,
2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4k
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Approve Fund Equity Transfers and Fund Closings.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the fund equity transfers and fund closings.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are sufficient fund balances being maintained in each fund to have adequate reserves and be able
to fund all desired projects? Are certain funds unnecessary?
BACKGROUND:
Equity Transfers
As of December 31, 2006, the General Fund balance was $9,952,115. This was an increase of
$1,212,022 over 2005. The State Auditor recommends a balance between 35-50% of the next
year’s expenditures. While not a formal policy, staff has targeted a fund balance of at least 40%.
The expenditure budget for 2008, as presented at the Truth-in-Taxation meeting, totals
$22,907,927 for the General Fund. 40% of that amount is $9,163,170. The difference between
the 40% target and our actual total of $9,952,115 leaves us with about $785,000 available for
transfer at this time.
The Employee Flexible Spending Fund covers expenses such as workers compensation, tuition
reimbursement, unemployment, and other employee benefits. The funding source for these
expenses has been a transfer from the General Fund. The most recent transfer was done in 2005
in the amount of $200,000. At the beginning of 2007, this fund had a negative cash balance of
$189,978. At this time, the fund has a deficit balance of $325,600. A transfer of $350,000 is
recommended to this fund.
Each year, all fund balances are evaluated to determine if they are adequate to meet the current
year’s obligations as well as future years. At the October 22, 2007 Study Session, two funds, the
Municipal Building Fund and Technology Replacement Fund, were identified as having a
projected deficit within the next one to two years.
The Municipal Building Fund has no dedicated annual funding source at this time. Its purpose is
to fund all capital improvements to City facilities. While it will maintain a positive fund balance
through December 31, 2007, it is projected that the Municipal Building Fund will have a deficit
of approximately $335,000 by the end of 2008 if all proposed projects are completed. A transfer
of $350,000 from the General Fund to the Municipal Building Fund would keep the fund in a
positive position until 2009.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4k) Page 2
Subject: Fund Equity Transfers and Fund Closings
Another fund that will be experiencing a deficit is the Technology Replacement Fund. This fund
also has no dedicated annual funding source, with limited revenues coming in from charges to
the Housing Authority, EDA, and Enterprise Funds. It consistently is projected to have large
deficits each year through 2012, which will erode the current fund balance into a negative
position by 2009. A transfer of $85,000 from the General Fund to the Technology Replacement
Fund would keep the fund in a positive position to cover planned expenses to 2009.
Fund Closings
The Finance Department has identified a number of funds that are no longer necessary. We
would like the City Council to take formal action to close them and transfer their balances. The
funds are:
Fund
Number
Name
Estimated
Balance as of
12/31/06
Disposition
4150 1999 GO Improvement Cap Proj $0 Close
4290 Hutchinson Trail Construction $0 Close
4450 2003 GO Improvement Cap Proj $0 Close
4240 Louisiana Court Improvement $1,064 Xfer to Debt Service Fund
4470 2005A GO Bond Cap Proj $481,628 Xfer to Debt Service Fund
The 2005A GO Bond Capital Project fund was spent down to basically nothing by May, 2007
which was the two year spending timeframe that we had to meet to comply with arbitrage
regulations.
These funds will be able to be closed with the audit for 2007. We will not have to report on them
in future years.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The action recommended will allow the city’s various funds to be adequately funded at least for
the short term and clean up unnecessary financial reporting.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4k) Page 3
Subject: Fund Equity Transfers and Fund Closings
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND EQUITY TRANSFERS
AND FUND CLOSINGS FOR 2007
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has created various special purpose funds; and
WHEREAS, some of those funds rely on transfers from the General Fund for their
continued operaton; and
WHEREAS, some of those funds are no longer necessary to the operation of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. That approval is hereby given to the Finance Director to transfer the following
sums of money from the General Fund to the designated funds as shown.
Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount
General Fund Employee Flexible Benefits $350,000
General Fund Municipal Building Fund $350,000
General Fund Technology Replacement $ 85,000
Louisiana Court Improvement 2000 GO Bond Fund D/S Remaining Balance
2005A GO Bond Cap Proj 2005A Capital Projects Fund Remaining Balance
2. Approval is hereby given to the Finance Director to close the following funds as
shown.
Name
Estimated
Balance as of
12/31/06
1999 GO Improvement Cap Proj $0
Hutchinson Trail Construction $0
2003 GO Improvement Cap Proj $0
Louisiana Court Improvement $1,064
2005A GO Bond Cap Proj $481,628
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4l
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall, Westwood Room
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Steve Fillbrandt, Trinicia Hill, Anne Mavity
Commissioner Judith Moore arrived at 5:06 p.m.
Commissioner Catherine Courtney arrived at 5:24 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Bodnar, Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for September, 2007
The Board minutes of September 19, 2007 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Approval of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Payment Standards
Ms. Schnitker provided an explanation of Fair Market Rents and payment standards,
and reviewed the factors considered in revising payment standards. Only two- and
three-bedroom payment standards will be revised, effective December 1, 2007.
Commissioner Mavity moved for Approval of Revised Payment Standards for
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, and Commissioner Moore seconded the
motion. The motion passed 4-0.
b. Annual Agency Plan for FY2008 – Draft
Ms. Schnitker explained that since the HA submitted a 5-Year Plan/Annual Plan in
2005, only the Annual Plan will be required for 2008. The draft Plan will be
distributed to Resident Advisory Committee members, presented to Hamilton House
Council, displayed for review at Hamilton House and City Hall, and submitted to the
County to ensure consistency with the Consolidated Plan. Based on comments and
input received, the Plan will be revised and presented for Board approval at the
January, 2008 meeting. A Public Hearing is also scheduled for the January meeting.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4l) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes November 14, 2007
c. Disaster Housing Assistance Program
Ms. Schnitker provided the Commissioners background on a new Disaster Housing
Assistance Program (DHAP) that provides housing assistance and case management
services to families displaced by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. The HA
currently administers six families in DHAP, and will receive placement, case
management and administrative fees calculated at 15% of the initial DHAP rent
subsidy payments.
d. Discussion with City Council
Ms. Schnitker stated that December 10th has been reserved on City Council’s Study
Session agenda to discuss the HA’s Action Plan and status updates. Providing a
written report to Council allows them to review the information and discuss it
amongst themselves prior to meeting with the HA Board. A copy of the Council
report will also be delivered to HA Board Members. Ms. Schnitker also asked the
Commissioners to consider holding their monthly meeting on December 10th, prior to
meeting with City Council.
e. PH Scattered Site Review
Ms. Bodnar presented a virtual tour of six scattered-site, single-family properties.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – November, 2007
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report for November, 2007
2. Scattered-Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
3. Draft Financial Statements – Draft Financial Statements were distributed at
the meeting.
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Mavity moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Moore seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Mavity, Secretary
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4m
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 7, 2007--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis
Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Adam Fulton, Nancy Sells, Greg Hunt
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Minutes: October 17, 2007
Commissioner Person made a motion to approve the October 17, 2007 minutes.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Chair Johnston-Madison noted a change in the agenda to hear item No. 4 first.
4. Other Business
A. Resolution of Conformance to Comprehensive Plan for modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and a Tax Increment
Financing Plan for the West End Tax Increment Financing District
Greg Hunt, EDA Coordinator, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Timian asked if Golden Valley would provide a TIF district in the section
of the development in Golden Valley.
Mr. Hunt replied the proposed TIF district does not encumber property in the City of
Golden Valley and they were not providing TIF.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to adopt the Resolution of Conformance to
Comprehensive Plan for modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the West End Tax Increment
Financing District.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007
3. Hearings
A. Fretham 9th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat with Variances
Location: 2942 Boone Avenue South
Applicant: Lakewest Development Co., LLC
Case No.: Case No. 07-44-S
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report and project history. The developer made
modifications to address concerns by the neighborhood including the parking turn around
and adding a four-foot boulder wall lining the property from Boone Avenue along
Minnetonka Blvd, behind the proposed trail easement by the County. That would
effectively eliminate the possibility of cars crashing into the homes.
Commissioner Morris asked if the front yard on Lots 1 and 2 faced Cavell.
Mr. Fulton replied yes.
Commissioner Morris asked if the zoning code prohibited parking at the front of a
building. Mr. Fulton replied no, the zoning code does not prohibit parking of a single car.
There are restrictions in the zoning code for parking of RVs and other vehicles in front of
a building.
Commissioner Morris believed the code allowed parking in the driveway, but past the
front building line, with a driveway, which was considered transitional. He wasn’t
certain the code allowed them to create a front yard parking area. Mr. Fulton replied he
could not reference the particulars in the code, but would provide that if requested.
Commissioner Morris commented that previous neighborhood testimony concerned the
curve of Minnetonka Blvd. and cars going too fast could careen through the triangular
area at Cavell and pass over Cavell into a tree area. If there was a traffic safety issue,
typically there is a crash barrier intended to deflect the vehicle and slow it down. He
would rather see a barrier than a boulder wall, which would be safer for drivers.
Mr. Fulton replied the City Engineer reviewed this and determined it was not necessary.
The developer was adding it to address neighborhood concerns. It is a County road and
the City does not have the ability to put in a barrier. Because the City Engineer
determined it was not necessary, it was likely the County would determine the same. It
was seen as a good fix. It was discussed at the neighborhood meeting and the
neighborhood was not interested in a guard barrier.
Mr. Fulton reviewed the variances and completed the presentation of the staff report.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, stated they could talk about the
parking and asked for clarification of the question about parking not being allowed in the
front yard of single-family homes.
Commissioner Morris recalled when the City proposed parking ordinances no vehicles
could park on a parking area designated in the front yard of a house. It would prohibit
putting a parking pad at a right angle to a driveway at the front of the house or from
parking a vehicle back of the sidewalk on the front portion of the lawn.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007
Commissioner Robertson added there is a maximum or average width of driveway and
adding a parking area often would exceed that. He thought it was a 22 ft. average. He
commented that it looked like those parking areas might push out the average width of
those driveways and another variance would be needed.
Mr. Fulton replied these were hypothetical plans and the applicant was showing what
could be done. There are no building permits before them and a building permit would
be handled administratively. The applicant’s intent was to show they could provide
parking in that location. There was no curb cut permit. He read the relevant code section
that no more than three vehicles can be parked or stored outside an enclosed building at a
single family residence. Other portions of the code discuss restrictions on non-passenger
vehicles. The restrictions are set up predominantly to prohibit storage of trailers and
things like RVs being stored. The driveway requirement of 22 feet is not extraordinarily
wide. You can’t have a functional driveway with a two-car garage and have something
parked like that. The width of that could prohibit that in the future. The requirement is
the 22-feet maximum average over the entire width and 30% of the front yard could be
paved.
Commissioner Morris stated he understood they were not looking at a building design or a lot
layout. This was strictly a land subdivision and platting issue. He brought it up because he
didn’t want neighborhood expectations that it could be done.
Commissioner Carper indicated one of the things staff discussed was getting 90° angled
lot lines. Other subdivisions have been before the Commission that were very angular
and not right angles. He asked why staff feels this is advantageous and allows the
applicant to amend what is normally expected in terms of lots, widths and square
footage?
Ms. McMonigal replied generally in laying out subdivisions, clear property lines are
advantageous for future property owners. The jogged lines make it difficult to tell where
the lot is. Another reason was so the home on Lot 3 could be set back further as was
requested by neighbors because the homes further to the north are set back further.
Commissioner Carper asked if this would set a precedent and if they had authorized
subdivision of lots so the resulting lots were less than the 9,000 square foot minimum and
allowed them to reduce the widths of the boundaries required.
Ms. McMonigal replied staff had not researched whether it had been done in St. Louis Park,
but from her experience working on subdivisions, it was very common to create the lots a
little bit differently than the code allowed in a situation like this if it made for a better
subdivision and better placement of the homes.
Commissioner Carper asked if other Commissioners were aware of similar situations.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007
Commissioner Robertson stated not long ago there was a proposal for a lot split that
required the seven criteria, rather than the four and there was also the need to prove a
hardship. It was odd to say there was a hardship that prevented the enjoyment of this
property when they had already approved a proposal that didn’t have variances. He said
this was a very odd request and he was not approving variances just to straighten out a
line when it wasn’t necessary.
Chair Johnston Madison opened the public hearing.
Bonnie Quinn, 2930 Cavell, felt the issue of drainage had not been addressed. There has
been a history of drainage issues on Cavell that had been dealt with satisfactorily by the
City to this point. A water main recently burst and all the water goes to the west. She
was concerned if there were more driveways and more impervious surface, there would
more drainage and she would like the City Engineer to look at the drainage. They
presently don’t have water in their garage and she was concerned with more driveways,
they would have problems.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the City Engineer had reviewed this and noted the
existing storm water system serving this part of the city had sufficient capacity to handle
the additional homes.
Ms. Quinn noted the property on the other side of proposed Lot 1 was denied permission
to expand a few years ago because the City said it would create water problems on
Cavell. She didn’t understand why the City would deny one request and not the other.
Curt Fretham, applicant, commented that the rearrangement on the lot lines came from
one primary reason to try to move the house on Boone Avenue further west to closer
match the houses on the street. The only way they could move the house further back
was to move the lot line further back, which became a straight line.
Steve Shelerud, 2910 Cavell, noted the water drainage was to the west, not the east as
pointed out in the plan. A main broke and there was water on Cavell and it flowed to the
west. He didn’t doubt there was adequate storm water runoff to accommodate that, but the
point of water running to the east was inaccurate.
Ms. McMonigal replied she didn’t believe staff stated which way it ran. The City Engineer
understood that it ran to the west.
Ron Hasselmann, 2850 Cavell, asked about parking and if they could park in front of
houses.
Mr. Fulton replied that was correct.
Mr. Hasselmann stated because of the water main that burst, a truck has been parked in
front of Lot 2, making it difficult to turn. If cars are parked there, driving along Cavell at
35 mph was hazardous to make the turn and a safety issue. Parking was an issue. He felt
the applicant should consider two lots instead of three. The applicant wouldn’t lose that
much money and the houses would be more in keeping with the style of neighborhood.
Now they will be houses of lesser value and inconsistent with the neighborhood. He said
he thought this was a terrible mistake.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007
Commissioner Morris clarified the parking the Commission was discussing was on the
property, not on the street. The plan was not to have cars parked on the street. It was to
develop a parking space in the front lawn of the building that would not interfere with
street parking.
Mr. Fulton clarified that staff brought up during the neighborhood meetings that Cavell
Avenue would be a good candidate for parking restrictions on one side because it is
narrow. The neighborhood indicated they were not interested in parking restrictions. If
the neighborhood wanted restrictions, they could petition the City Engineer and signage
would be installed after approval by the City Council.
Chair Johnston Madison closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper asked why the City wasn’t requiring a sidewalk.
Mr. Fulton replied the developer was willing to install a sidewalk, which was a request by
the neighborhood, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Upon closer review, the
sidewalks wouldn’t lead anywhere. The County and City are working to install a trail on
the south side of Minnetonka Blvd. The County has no intention of running a trail on the
north side, so there was no need for a trail in this location.
Commissioner Carper asked about crosswalk locations.
Mr. Fulton replied it would be advisable for people to cross at a street or they could travel to
the east to the underpass being finished by the County.
Ms. McMonigal added pedestrians could cross Minnetonka to use the trail on the south side.
Crossing at an intersection was preferable.
Commissioner Morris stated the last time this was before the Commission he voted for
the preliminary plat because what was presented met the code, was within the land
subdivision requirements and did not require any variances. Coming back with a second
design that did not meet the code and required variances wasn’t logical. The land
subdivision ordinance they adopted included the need to add sidewalks and trails, not
withstanding what side of the street it was on. The intent was that provision would last
for decades and as the City developed they would create an interlocking sidewalk trail
system. They were currently going at it one piece at a time and determining they didn’t
work because there wasn’t a sidewalk there, which was contrary to why they adopted the
subdivision ordinance. They wanted the sidewalks there and eventually they would
establish a sidewalk system within the City. A few times he voted in favor of the
variance when it was geographically nonsensical to put in a sidewalk. Because there was
going to be a trail on the other side of the street and to cross the street to the sidewalk,
was not logical. He did not support that variance.
Commissioner Carper asked if the Commission recalled giving variances to property
owners with small lot sizes and he recalled denying variances for side lots and square
footage of lots based on the configuration to the lots. He didn’t see any logic to approving
the variance for lot size. There is enough land to create two legal parcels. They had
enough land to create three legal parcels. To give a variance to make a lot smaller, so
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007
they can have three isn’t logical. The three lots can meet code. Notwithstanding what
was brought to them at the City Council meeting, he wasn’t sure the developer was trying
to make the changes as much as they were trying to accommodate the Council’s view of
what the lots should look like. He didn’t see a hardship to create three lots because they
could be made into three lots legally without a variance and it can certainly be made into
two lots with the only economic hardship to the developer was one extra house. He did
not support the variance requests. There is a discussion about the house and the
driveway, but they were not talking about the building, they were talking to a developer
who wanted to subdivide land and then determine what kind of a building could go inside
that land. If they had a plan before them of the types of buildings that would be
constructed on the lots, they would have a more logical reason to prove or disprove the
variances, but they didn’t know what was going to go on the lots. He didn’t like the
concept of building parking pads in front of house to accommodate off-street parking.
He said he didn’t support the current version of the plat.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked staff to clarify that the Commission was hearing this again
because the developer was asked to accommodate some of the neighborhood concerns
about the previous subdivision. In spite of the variances and parking, it sounded like
Commissioners were giving the impression they were beating up on staff for putting this
together. If they were going to take some of the properties and try to adjust them, this
was the process at work. The developer brought in a plan, the residents were not happy
with it. City Council asked them to take a step back and look at what could be reworked
and come back with something else, which was what they did. The Commission should
consider these were the types of adjustments they would have to make in a fully
developed neighborhood. She would not criticize on Lot 3 the fact that the developer had
come up with a plan to accommodate neighbor concerns about a house being too far
forward in line with the rest of the houses. They did exactly what was asked and she saw
that as a positive, not a negative.
Commissioner Robertson said between the two proposals, being that this one has variances
and the other one didn’t, he preferred the first proposal. To recommend denial of this, was
not recommending denial of subdividing the lot into three parcels. He supported the
previous proposal and didn’t want to send the message that he didn’t think the developer
shouldn’t be able to develop this lot into three parcels. He asked where are they at on the
process?
Ms. McMonigal explained that the developer submitted a plan that met the letter of the law.
When it was reviewed through the process, they had two neighborhood meetings and the
neighbors said they preferred two lots. It was understood that three lots fit on this property.
It then became a matter of putting three lots on this property in the best possible
configuration. Staff and the developer went back to create alternatives to do that and part
of it was to straighten out the lot lines and to improve the location of the home on Lot 3.
Staff thought this was a better configuration for a subdivision. There are three lots,
reconfigured differently. They thought it helped the neighborhood.
Commissioner Kramer asked what was the next step if the Planning Commission
recommended denial.
Ms. McMonigal replied the recommendation would go forward to the City Council.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007
Commissioner Kramer asked if the City Council would go back to reexamining the first
proposal or would they look at this proposal and see that Planning Commission
recommended denial and deny it.
Ms. McMonigal replied she couldn’t speak for the City Council, however they would
look at the current proposal and make a decision accordingly taking into account the
Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Commissioner Kramer said he agreed with parts of what everyone had said. He would
like to have parts of the first approval combined with parts of this one. He agreed about
the sidewalks and thought they should keep them. The lot line realignment made sense,
but he didn’t agree with all of the plan. He appreciated the work that had been done
between the neighbors, the developer and City staff. Parts of this were an improvement.
Commissioner Robertson said he didn’t like any of this proposal. He didn’t think this
was an improvement to approve a variance when it was not necessary. Regarding
moving the first house more in line with the other houses, there was also the argument of
having the corner house as a unique house. Having the house a little further out might
create more of a buffer from Minnetonka Blvd to the rest of the houses. He would like to
keep the sidewalks. He had no problem with the other configuration. He fully supported
the previous proposal and would vote against this. He didn’t want the message to go to
the City Council that he didn’t think the developer should develop this lot into three lots.
He fully thought it should.
Commissioner Carper said they were setting a dangerous precedent by configuring lots
less than 9,000 square feet, it was a slippery slope. The next one comes and they will be
five feet less than this and they get smaller and smaller. People denied before could
come back and ask for another review because they were being inconsistent. He would
recommend denying this.
Commissioner Person asked why it wouldn’t be possible if Lot 2 remained exactly 9,000
sq. ft. and why it wouldn’t be possible to build a house on it, that met most or all the
concerns of the neighborhood and Planning Commission. As was pointed out, the
drawing was hypothetical in terms of the houses that were placed on the lots. They have
no idea what would be built on the lots.
Chair Johnston Madison commented she didn’t have a problem with Lot 3 and the
setback. She did have a problem with Lot 1 and that it didn’t meet code of the square
footage. From that standpoint she would vote no.
Commissioner Robertson stated as he looked at this, from what he heard at the last
Planning Commission meeting, these changes didn’t really address any of the
neighborhood concerns and they hadn’t solved their issues. He was frustrated with the
politics and couldn’t accept the modification. The first proposal was good and met City
code, now it had come back modified in a way they couldn’t accept and he didn’t like
seeing it go that way.
Commissioner Kramer said he would have to vote against this, even though there were
parts that he liked. He disagreed with Commissioner Robertson that this did not meet some
of the neighborhoods concerns. Because it was all or nothing, he would vote against it.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 8
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007
He hoped there would be a third try where they could solve everything. He thought they
could do three lots and there was a way to make everyone happy. He wanted to be
technically correct and make sure the residents were satisfied.
Ms. McMonigal noted at the last neighborhood meeting they talked about how to
characterize the comments at the neighborhood meeting and the neighbors stated they
preferred a two lot configuration over a three lot configuration. There were some things
about this rearrangement some people felt were improved. They thought the layout was
improved. There was a strong feeling not to have sidewalks. They liked the idea of
adding the boulder wall.
Commissioner Person asked about the storm water where it says that the City Engineer
felt this would accommodate the construction of two new homes, was that a
misstatement?
Ms. McMonigal replied no, there is an existing home, so there would be two additional
new homes.
Commissioner Person stated it was his understanding that the existing home would be
demolished.
Ms. McMonigal responded yes, but there was a certain amount of impervious surface at
the time that was being accommodated. The subdivision would add two new homes.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat
with variances.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion recommending denial passed on
a vote of 7-0.
4. Other Business
Commissioner Kramer asked if there was a way to reduce the amount of paper in the
agenda packet, such as providing an executive summary for the West End TIF item.
Ms. McMonigal replied they would look into it. She explained that for the TIF issue, staff
erred on the side of more information because in the past there had been many questions
and they wanted to explain it well.
Commissioner Morris asked about the possibility of posting materials for review on the
web site under the Planning Commission section. Ms. McMonigal replied yes, that was a
possibility. She spoke about the Council’s recent move to a paperless agenda.
Commissioner Person pointed out in the November 2007 issue of Planning Magazine,
Adam Fulton was featured in an article called, Check them Out, Best Places for New
Planners to Work.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 4m) Page 9
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007
5. Communications - None
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 7:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4n
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period December 1 through December 14,
2007.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
275.25FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3M
275.25
37.79HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEABELSON, SHARON
37.79
567.75WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACCESS COMMUNICATIONS INC
567.75
2,024.32FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESACCOUNTEMPS
420.53WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
420.52SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
420.52SOLID WASTE BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
420.53STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,706.42
1,124.50HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTAD STRATEGIES
1,124.50
783.35EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION RESOURCES CORP
783.35
100.00ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL BUILDINGSALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CH
100.00
681.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
697.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,378.00
823.80EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAMERICA'S VEBA SOLUTION
823.80
154.18GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
132.26PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
52.72PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
93.85ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
45.74VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
97.71WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
97.70SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
674.16
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
813.55INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
813.55
4.32WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSANDERSON, ELAINE
4.32
5,175.00REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESANGEL ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT
5,175.00
23.17HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEAQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
23.17
206.54GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
76.29ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
282.83
25.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGASSOC OF TRAINING OFFICERS
100.00PATROLTRAINING
125.00
834.27WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
359.63SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,193.90
670.00GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSB&M HAZELWOOD MASONRY INC
670.00
3,339.73TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTBACHMANS
3,339.73
13.12SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBARR ENGINEERING CO
577.50PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
44,648.74CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
45,239.36
19.04SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
19.04
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN
225.00
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
12.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAININGBIRNO, RICK
172.17ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
184.17
8,299.07SAMPLINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLOOMINGTON, CITY OF
8,299.07
296.17GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSBOYER TRUCK PARTS
296.17
359.20SPECIAL PROJECTS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
359.20
175.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATBROOKLYN CENTER, CITY OF
175.00
1,641.38SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS
1,641.38
387.43SAFETY SERVICES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSBUSINESS & LEGAL REPTS
387.43
378.52GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESC & H DISTRIBUTORS LLC
378.52
31,560.00OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYCALGON CARBON CORP
31,560.00
438.34PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES RENTAL EQUIPMENTCANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
438.34
306.73DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
306.73
2,417.92FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
32.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL
1,228.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
106.62WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
144.24NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
5,318.14WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
288.64REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
443.07SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
9,978.75
1,399.96FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
6,626.10ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
8,026.06
550.35PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESCENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION
550.35
35.15GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
29.51WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
64.66
263.74ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
642.96ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
166.84ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
182.77ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
32.43HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING REVENUE
499.43HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
165.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
35.04COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
468.20COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
9.71COMM & MARKETING G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
513.54FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
22.70FINANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
230.34FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER
18.11GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
816.62INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
48.99GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
19.16CABLE TV G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,054.71DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
6,190.29
945.00COMMUNICATION & MARKETING BUDG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCITY IMAGE COMMUNICATIONS
945.00
15,825.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCLEARWATER RECREATION
15,825.00
18,854.69ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
18,854.69
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
219.90NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
219.90
125.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAININGCOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
3,084.36CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,209.36
13,669.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICECONCRETE ETC INC
13,669.00
215.05INSPECTIONS G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGCOOKE JP CO
215.05
88.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCORNELISON, JAY
88.00
78.75TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESCROWN MARKING INC
78.75
286.41POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
20.97POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
307.38
33.25GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
789.43BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
822.68
77.80INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGDAYCO GENERAL INC
77.80
1,746.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDEMARS SIGNS INC
1,746.00
3,026.84INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
3,026.84
191.50ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
191.50
45.00POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDIXON, DUWAYNE
45.00
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,546.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
5,546.00
177,314.17CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIDMJ CORPORATION
177,314.17
510.00BROCHUREPRINTING & PUBLISHINGDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
510.00
197.18GROUNDS MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
197.18
125.00PATROLTRAININGEAGLE TRAINING LLC
125.00
2,177.92BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESECOLAB INC
2,177.92
349.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
349.00
1,440.00WOLFE LAKE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
1,440.00
3,482.85ADMINISTRATION G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE IN
3,482.85
538.82HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
538.82
330.00INSPECTIONS G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESENSR CORPORATION
1,950.49SAMPLINGGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
6,630.88STUDIESGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8,911.37
2,752.80HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING REVENUEENTER & ASSOCIATES INC, JACK
2,752.80
162.50POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEVIDENT CRIME SCENE PRODUCTS
16.00POLICE G & A POSTAGE
178.50
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
41.95POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
41.95
637.78ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELL GAS
637.78
6,417.14COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGFIRST IMPRESSION GROUP
6,417.14
273.40PATROLTRAVEL/MEETINGSFISHER, JON
273.40
260.08SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESFORCE AMERICA INC
609.54GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
869.62
44.44HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSEFOSSE, ALI
44.44
333.33ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
333.33
25.00BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGARDENWORKS
25.00
77.97ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
77.97
957.00LOCATESOTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
957.00
16.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGOVERNING
16.00
739.61GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
180.54GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
920.15
4,239.96DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
4,239.96
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
73.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATGREEN EXPO
73.00
974.48TREE DISEASE PRIVATE SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHAINES TREE SERVICE, B J
17,395.72TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
18,370.20
5,701.13WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP
5,701.13
1,375.98SPECIAL PROJECTS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEHD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
1,375.98
1,085.40RANGEOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHECKLER & KOCH INC
1,085.40
4,425.75POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
4,425.75
7,939.05OFFICE EQUIPMENT DESIGN/PROCUR OTHERHENRICKSEN PSG
7,939.05
3,039.21WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
3,039.21
27.92GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
27.92
53.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALHOFFMAN, NYLA
53.00
54.08ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLSHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
23.38PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.48BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
291.37WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
386.31
16.75COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
16.75
23.80POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
9.57ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
14.74PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
15.39WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
27.99WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
47.36STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
138.85
115.43ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
115.43
30.22WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
325.86WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
356.08
441.53TREE DISEASE PRIVATE SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHUZEL, CANDACE
441.53
71.66IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHYDROLOGIC WATER MGMT
71.66
1,120.00ADMINISTRATION G & A PREPAID EXPENSESICMA
1,120.00
186.47OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
306.99ORGANIZED REC G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT
493.46
1,404.95CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIMPLEX.NET INC
1,404.95
87.28GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M
87.28
11.41GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINVER GROVE FORD
89.46ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
100.87
124.32ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
60.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
184.32
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJDA DESIGN ARCHITECTS
225.00
47.33WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLSJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
47.33
692.25NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJESSEN PRESS INC
692.25
300.00LOCATESOTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJM CONSULTING LTD
300.00
67,743.23CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIKEVITT EXCAVATING INC
67,743.23
1,000.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING REVENUEKREJCI TRAINING ASSOCIATES, SH
1,000.00
671.24WIRELESS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLANDIS, FRANK
671.24
913.64BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
913.64
170.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
170.00
80,577.25UNINSURED LOSS B/S PREPAID EXPENSESLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST
80,577.25
13.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
13.00
5.92WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSLEY, JOHN
5.92
613.68BOILER MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICELOUIS DEGIDIO SERVICES
613.68
288.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLUDWIG, SCOTT
288.00
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
503.21SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLYNDE CO LLC
503.21
150.00COMMUNICATION & MARKETING BUDG SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMAGC
150.00
99.95ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMAGNUM TACTICAL SUPPLY
6.95ERUPOSTAGE
106.90
2,541.11WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMANAGED SERVICES INC
2,541.11
26.72WESTWOOD G & A TRAININGMCCONNELL, BECKY
26.72
33.20WINTERGENERAL SUPPLIESMEISSNER, AMY
33.20
221.83WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMETER LEAK DETECTION INC
221.83
441.23WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMETRO LEAK DETECTION INC
441.23
1,658.25INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
294,271.77OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
295,930.02
303.83PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
303.83
48.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINDIOLA III, JOHN
48.00
372.60EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
372.60
515.46WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMINNESOTA BOLT & NUT COMPANY
515.46
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
53.58POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINNESOTA CHIEFS POLICE ASSOC
5.00POLICE G & A POSTAGE
195.00SUPERVISORYSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
253.58
2,100.96EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
2,100.96
45.00INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
45.00
5.00ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATI
5.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
6,612.13WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEMINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT
6,612.13
90.44SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
90.44
265.55PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
265.55
90.00BOILER MTCE LICENSESMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
60.00OPERATIONSLICENSES
150.00
420.00SUPPORT SERVICES SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMN JUVENILE OFFICERS
420.00
1,054.24SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTSMN MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT INC
1,054.24
60.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMORRIE'S MINNETONKA FORD
60.00
150.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMPELRA
150.00HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
300.00
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
300.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMSPE
300.00
60.41GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
60.41
70.00SAMPLINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
70.00
95.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSN E H A
95.00
2.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
333.18PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
24.45GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
367.50GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
727.13
416.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATNEW HORIZONS LEARNING CENTER
416.50
317.02INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESNEXT DAY GOURMET
317.02
132.49HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
113.64DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES TELEPHONE
36.56FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
177.38EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
566.26POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
438.08OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
36.56PUBLIC WORKS G & A TELEPHONE
277.90ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
390.55PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
110.51PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
528.85ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
279.35PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
91.87ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
194.54WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
90.42REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
329.06VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
354.45WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
151.46SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
4,299.93
500.98WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY
500.98
11,064.44BROCHUREPRINTING & PUBLISHINGNYSTROM PUBLISHING
11,064.44
84.39STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESO'CONNOR, CHARLES
84.39
400.00ANIMAL CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
400.00
99.43WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAROESTREICH, MARK
99.43
40.88DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
46.74GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
60.18POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
203.96OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
26.45INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
18.82PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
11.49ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
18.82PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
18.83VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
2.46HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
448.63
429.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
429.00
29.65OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESOHLIN SALES INC
29.65
50.32WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPACKAGING CORP OF AMERICA
50.32
1,089.70PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESPARK LIGHTING INC
1,089.70
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
185.52GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSPARTS PLUS
185.52
57.30ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPASCOE, NANCY
57.30
311.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
10,161.96PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,472.96
35.22WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPELLETIR, DENNIS
35.22
1,850.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
1,850.00
2,970.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPETERSON, BRENT
2,970.00
7.78POLICE G & A POSTAGEPETTY CASH
79.00INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
86.78
1,250.31GENERAL REPAIR TIRESPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
1,250.31
3,900.00COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
698.42BROCHUREPOSTAGE
188.12WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
188.11SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
188.11SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
188.11STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
5,350.87
60.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALPRAIRIE ELECTRIC
60.00
705.21ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRESTIGE COLLISION & GLASS
705.21
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
94.56SAFETY SERVICES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSPROGRESSIVE BUSINESS PUBLICATI
94.56
1,425.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESQUALITY METALCRAFTS INC
1,425.00
1,342.63WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
5,941.69STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
7,284.32
271.55TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESQUILL CORP
271.55
22.51REC CENTER BUILDING TELEPHONEQWEST
22.51
40.45ICE RESURFACER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESR & R SPECIALTIES
40.45
1,700.08FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
739.99REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
72.80WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
561.79SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,074.66
41.00WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
41.00SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
41.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
41.01STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
164.01
164.41CABLE TV G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESRELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES
164.41
182.99ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRICHARDSON, TERESA
182.99
940.28PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES RENTAL EQUIPMENTRICOH CUSTOMER FINANCE CORP
940.28
44.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALSEDGWICK HEATING & AIR
44.00
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
84.00HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAININGSENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION
84.00
241.50ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHEEHAN, ALEEAH
241.50
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHELTER ARCHITECTURE
225.00
125.66ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONESPRINT
307.24RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
43.56FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
338.90POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
815.36
642.85PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
642.85
60.84ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYSTANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, TH
53.10HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
14.16COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
40.67TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.76ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
39.25FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
112.29COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.64FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
121.80POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
77.37OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
74.62INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
44.05PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
55.35ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.56PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
81.57ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.56PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.15ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.15WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.12REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.64VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.66HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.56WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,976.81EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,936.68
30,000.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEP
30,000.00
223.93POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
1,252.51RANGEOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
95.79ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,572.23
6,512.50REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
6,512.50
192.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWEELEY, DAVID
192.00
473.40GROUNDS MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC
188.25IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
661.65
14.60GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
127.35POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES
70.02NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TRAINING
211.97
300.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSTCALMC
300.00
67.45GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESTERMINAL SUPPLY CO
67.45
720.92GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
720.92
66.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEXA TONKA TAILORING
66.00
198.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTHOMPSON PLUMBING CORP
198.50
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
288.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHRASHER, ANDY
288.00
372.75OUTREACH & PROGRAMMING GENERAL SUPPLIESTIGHTROPE MEDIA SYSTEMS
372.75
738.55ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
738.55
467.30WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTKDA
70.78PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
538.08
346.62TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICETOP NOTCH TREE CARE
346.62
20,514.03EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTTURFWERKS LLC
20,514.03
236.16OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
236.16
186.50SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED
1,489.67PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,676.17
429.41STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEUNITED RENTALS INC
429.41
256.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
256.00
255.00OPERATIONSTRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
255.00
21,942.60WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNPLUGGED CITIES LLC
21,942.60
94.83POLICE G & A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
18.90WATER UTILITY BUDGET TELEPHONE
113.73
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
253.50HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
253.50
4,065.28WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
4,065.28
192.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVANG, WILLIAM
192.00
105.73ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
105.73
80.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTVERIFIED CREDENTIALS
80.00
1,378.74VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
129.25POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
1,507.99
39.30WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
39.30
171.03PARK MAINTENANCE BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYWASTE MANAGEMENT
171.03
1,246.50COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TRAVEL/MEETINGSWILLENBRING, ANDY
1,246.50
589.79EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S STATE WITHHOLDINGWISCONSIN DEPT OF REVENUE
589.79
500.00ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEWITTMAN, ROBERT
500.00
50.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATWMCA
50.00
7,625.38FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
156.03PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
247.90WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
10,409.93ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
12/12/2007CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
12/14/2007 -12/01/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
629.71WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
21,159.48OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
1,604.62OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
3,021.87OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
1,168.52OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
347.18WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
46,370.62
2,463.62NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTXIOTECH CORP
2,463.62
117.04SANDING/SALTING SMALL TOOLSZACKS INC
117.04
74.58TREE TRIMMING/PRUNING OFFICE SUPPLIESZIP PRINTING
74.58
Report Totals 1,134,151.15
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Boards and Commissions
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to appoint the citizen representatives to fill vacancies in the following Boards and
Commissions with terms as follows:
Name Commission Term
Expiration
David Dyer Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2008
Helen Fu Human Rights Commission 12/31/2008
Joan Barnes Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2009
Dalton Shaughnessy Human Rights Commission (Youth Comm.) 08/31/2008
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to appoint David Dyer, Helen Fu, Joan Barnes and Dalton Shaughnessy
to their desired commissions?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council interviewed applicants David Dyer, Helen Fu, and Joan Barnes in December
2007 to fill various Board and Commission vacancies. After the interviews, Council discussed
the candidates and agreed to make appointments to the Telecommunications Advisory
Commission, Human Rights Commission, and Police Advisory Commission. When a vacancy
occurs in the middle of the term, the Council may appoint a citizen representative to complete
the remainder of the term.
Telecommunications Advisory Commission
Mary Jean Overend has been a Commissioner since 1998 and recently resigned in 2007. The
City Council interviewed David Dyer on December 3, 2007 for the vacancy position to complete
the remainder of the term expiring December 31, 2008.
Police Advisory Commission
Commissioner Siyad Abdullahi has recently resigned as he is no longer a resident of the City.
The City Council interviewed Joan Barnes on December 10, 2007 for the vacancy position to
complete the remainder of the term expiring December 31, 2009. Appointment for this
commission is contingent on the appointee successfully passing a criminal background check.
Human Rights Commission
1. Youth Commission Member – This is a housekeeping item for your consideration. As you
may remember, Dalton Shaughnessy was appointed August 21, 2006 as the alternate youth
member because both youth commissioner positions were filled.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 5a) Page 2
Subject: Board and Commission Appointments and Reappointments
In May, Youth Commissioner Greg Asche resigned May 15, 2007 and Dalton Shaughnessy has
indicated he would like to serve as a regular youth member. You may note that the expiration
dates for the youth commissioner position have changed to August 31 to follow the school year
term for the convenience of our students.
2. Regular Commissioner - The City Council interviewed Helen Fu on December 3, 2007 for a
regular member position to complete the remainder of Craig Aizman’s term, which expires
December 31, 2008. Mr. Aizman resigned his position in February 2007.
Vacancies
The City Clerk’s office, the Police Department, and Communications Department are continuing
to work on recruitment for other openings in the following Boards & Commissions:
Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission
Charter Commission
Human Rights Commission
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
Planning Commission Youth member
Police Advisory Commission
Telecommunications Advisory Commission
We anticipate that you will be interviewing additional candidates in the near future to fill the
remaining vacancies. Information about our openings will be listed in the Sun Sailor Newspaper,
website, and in the Park Perspective. In addition, we are recruiting for an attorney for the
Human Rights Commission as required by ordinance. This vacancy was created when Matthew
Armbrecht resigned his position earlier this year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Appointing diverse citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards
and Commissions assures St. Louis Park is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of
being a connected and engaged community.
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 5b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Boards and Commissions
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Reappointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to reappoint the following Commissioners as city representatives to their respective
commissions with terms as follows:
Name Commission Term
Expiration
Ryan Burt Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2010
Paul Roberts Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2010
David Lee Fire Civil Service 12/31/2010
Sharon Lyon Human Rights Commission 12/31/2010
Ahmed Maaraba Human Rights Commission 12/31/2010
Shelley Taylor Human Rights Commission 12/31/2010
George Hagemann Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Kirk Hawkinson Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Lauren Webb-Hazlett (Youth) Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 08/31/2008
Lynne Carper Planning Commission 12/31/2010
Dennis Morris Planning Commission 12/31/2010
James Smith, Jr. Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Hans Widmer Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Rick Dworsky Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Dale Hartman Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to reappoint the commissioners listed above to serve another term to their
respective commissions?
BACKGROUND:
The terms of the commissioners listed above will expire on December 31, 2007. Staff liaisons
have been consulted and these Commissioners have indicated that they wish to be reappointed to
a new term. Terms are for three years with the exception of a student term which runs for one
year only.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 5b) Page 2
Subject: Board and Commission Appointments and Reappointments
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Appointing diverse citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards
and Commissions assures St. Louis Park is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of
being a connected and engaged community.
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Resolutions adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA levies.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Budget for 2008 and approving the 2007 Property
Tax Levy collectible in 2008.
Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the HRA Levy for 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City Council must annually adopt a budget providing for the expenses of the city for the
following year. By Charter, this budget must be balanced with current revenues and current
expenditures in matching amounts. The budget must be enacted in the time frame allowed by
state statute and the Truth-in-Taxation process.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has been discussing the 2008 budget, 2008 property tax levy, and the HRA
levy for the past 6 months. In September, the City Council approved the preliminary tax levy,
budget, and HRA levy for 2008. The Truth-in-Taxation public hearing was held on these items
December 3, 2007 as part of the regular City Council meeting.
2007 PROPERTY TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2008
The proposed property tax levy payable for 2008 reflects an increase of 5.86% when compared
to the 2007 property tax levy. The allocation of property taxes is illustrated below:
2007 2008
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY Adopted Proposed
General Fund and Park & Recreation $16,711,202 $ 17,857,376
Park Improvement 1,010,000 1,010,000
Pavement Management 415,000 415,000
Debt Service 1,341,800 1,337,300
TOTAL TAX CAPACITY LEVIES $19,478,002 $ 20,619,676
Dollar Increase $1,141,674
Percentage Increase 5.86%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8a) Page 2
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy
2008 Budget
General Fund and Park & Rec
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2006 2007 2008
and Activity Actual Adopted Proposed % change
General Government:
Administration/Legislative 797,454 982,931 1,034,329
Communications & Marketing 183,541 218,751 287,782
Community Outreach 91,221 116,397 83,983
Human Resources 557,862 568,372 629,673
Information Resources 1,392,659 1,490,176 1,460,839
Finance 1,044,547 1,053,482 1,123,214
Community Development 952,289 1,024,954 1,080,897
Facilities Maintenance 877,467 1,164,367 1,187,925
Total General Government 5,897,040 6,619,431 6,888,642 4.1%
Public Safety:
Police 6,230,134 6,676,605 6,927,114
Fire Protection 2,867,345 2,756,522 3,029,120
Inspectional Services 1,719,241 1,793,306 1,852,873
Total Public Safety 10,816,720 11,226,433 11,809,107 5.2%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 790,781 799,587 832,583
Engineering 725,787 745,302 785,182
Operations 2,408,388 2,295,663 2,412,414
Total Public Works 3,924,956 3,840,552 4,030,179 4.9%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,202,686 1,223,354 1,250,699
Recreation Center 1,293,032 1,319,600 1,358,382
Park Maintenance 1,608,262 1,333,382 1,377,518
Westwood 438,971 452,085 466,677
Environment 508,895 276,598 288,982
Vehicle Maintenance - 1,003,119 1,033,271
Total Park & Recreation 5,051,846 5,608,137 5,775,530 3.0%
Non-Departmental:
Allowance for Uncollectible Taxes - 180,000 180,000
Total Non-Departmental - 180,000 180,000 0.0%
Total General & Park Funds 25,690,562$ 27,474,553$ 28,683,457$ 4.4%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8a) Page 3
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy
General Fund and Park & Rec
Summary of Revenues
2006 2008
Actual Adopted Proposed
Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,691,444$ 16,711,202$ 17,857,376$
Licenses and Permits 2,934,270 2,636,500 2,712,715
Intergovernmental 1,884,061 1,685,206 1,765,767
Charges for Services 2,236,277 2,123,049 2,143,145
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 322,558 309,600 311,000
Investment Earnings 303,110 309,099 326,600
Miscellaneous Revenue 888,654 945,061 936,161
Transfers In 2,609,819 2,754,836 2,630,694
Total Revenues 26,870,193$ 27,474,553$ 28,683,457$
2007
The 2008 Operations Budget revenues and expenditures show an increase over the 2007 adopted
budget of approximately 4.4%. The increase in revenue is due primarily to the property tax levy
increase. Primary expenditure increases are due to personnel and energy costs. The budget
document identifies the areas of change for each division.
HRA LEVY:
The reason for adopting the HRA levy is because of legislative changes in 2001 which affected
tax increment revenue streams. The legislative changes have severely hampered the ability of
the City to do necessary infrastructure improvements as part of specific redevelopment projects
or in areas of the city undergoing redevelopment and renewal. As such, these dollars will be
used for infrastructure improvements in areas experiencing redevelopment or renewal.
The EDA, as well as the City Council, is required to approve this levy. As outlined in the
resolution, the HRA levy cannot exceed .0144 percent of the taxable market value of the City.
As of August, 2007, the market value of the City is $5,533,670,900. This market value allows
the City to levy $796,848 in 2008. In 2007, the allowable levy amount was $743,084.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This action will assist in funding important infrastructure improvements.
Attachment: Resolutions
Budget Summary
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8a) Page 4
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR 2008 AND
APPROVING 2007 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2008
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax
levy and a budget in December of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the budget document;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the 2008 budget is adopted as presented in the 2008 budget document; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2007, collectible in
2008 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
2008
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY Proposed
General Fund and Park & Recreation $ 17,857,376
Park Improvement 1,010,000
Pavement Management 415,000
Debt Service 1,337,300
TOTAL TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVIES $ 20,619,676
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8a) Page 5
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HRA LEVY FOR 2008
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of
the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0144 percent of taxable
market value of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City; and
WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2008,
such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the
limitations contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
!"#$%&’#’#
()*#+
#
,$,
-#*#
#..#.
#$,#
+##
,/
0,,,,,$,#
#
#1##$,*
&2###3
#
#4
()
()*#+
"56%
#
()
*$*$*
#4
()
()*#+
"56%
#
()
*$*$*
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 6
!
! 7897:;<99:=:8<6:557><688>68<
8?95 76>9 7?6:976:
"##77::69 7678>?958>9?68=5>5
#77 @ @ @
$ ;9;79:<5?5969<?=>?78<8:797>?<
%
& "%
%’##
#>::=/,
A
9?97B6:86B
:9>B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E
$#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 7
( ) "*+
!"
"#$
" %
&%"
’%%%
$###
/##E>::;,#
E,#C
##,
E),$#,F
,
,,####
* 1
G#C
G
#,"1
,4%
G$#
G###F
#+/##
G##4$##$#,
@,E
),;@@
/#A
#
E
#)
))
F #
#
E !E E
"%
3
##
"%
#
"%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 8
!
! 8>599?<7>7>=<??:;8<857?7><
766 6?=@ @
"##99==?86:;86 88?;?:887=6:
$ 85>;?7<8=7698<>8=568<>=55=><
%
& "%
%’##
( ) "*+
#FE
)#D$##@#>::=
/,>::=$##
>::5/,#A$
@>::=’$@$
>::=,#
#A
7?6;B ;:99B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 9
! &#
*,##
E##
#()#*#
##$#,
E>::5*
*/
,$,###
*@’
’’
)4
*#
4
’
"8:%*#";%
*">;%* 4
"7%
*"6%#">%’
*
EEE
*
EE
"9%
4
’
#
*";%
’4
"7%
#$A
*
*
’’
)4
*#
4
’
"8:%*#";%
*">;%* 4
"7%
*"6%#">%’
*
EEE
*
EE
"9%
4
’
#
*";%
’4
"7%
#$A
*
*
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 10
,
!
! 575;6<68==><58>?><578>5<
;65 85;88::88::
"##755:;7?8;7 99::6 ?56;
&@ @ @ @
#@ @ @ @
$ 88>8>=<?8>>8<88;7?5<=7?=7<
& "%
%
%’##
! &#
878B
88;>B
=5:5B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E
$#
&/,**#
#-/
/()#,##+#0##,
*(#)A#
/,’$<76:::
*#()#>::=
*(#)
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 11
’)
()CF
1
@*#+##
@)
@,$
@’##
@&#
@#
@(##A’&C*#
FC,$,*,$@#+,
#+#@@#
*(),/#,
,,
,$,##,
(),#1#4(
)@*#+()$
*
#4
()
()*#+
"56%
#
()
*$*$*
#4
()
()*#+
"56%
#
()
*$*$*
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 12
!
! 7;9;97<9>;?=><97758><96?;>7<
>9==8685 >:::>:::
"##87=8:;8>?7;7 87>;;:8;=:6:
#@ @ @ @
$ 6:6>75<665=;><6;=75><;>?;57<
%
& "%
%’##
’)
>::9,###,
<8::::>::9<86:::>::6
>::;>::5, <8>:::F,#
/##>::=
/,’$(
)3#,*F’
()C##*
()
,,#"@/%>::=,A
#"<8::::%"<6:::%#
,()##F/
###-,$#
:7>B
>;;?B5>??B
1
/
1*#
@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 13
( ) ( $#
E>::5E)"E)%,#,,
#"%$#
E#"E%,,E)
E###,
@##,$,
#@$##
$####,
+#
#E@,
’*!E"’!E%7:@### ,
#8?5>E,$,’*!E#
@,,,$
E,@
#,$
E#@,E
E3#E,$###
#C$#,
E#"E%E)E#E
E!E+#$,$
#
E
#)
))F #
#
E !E E
"%
3
##
"%
#
"%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 14
!
! 98688?<6>9>56<;87??7<7=;55=<
7797=787>6 >?5::@
"##=59>7?=75:6?=9;9=7 5:?;;:
&@ @ @ @
#@ @ @ @
$ 87>>5?;<87?>;6?<89?:85;<8:?;97=<
& "%
%
%’##
$# & - .
& "%
( ) ( $#
E#,,$@$#
#3,8?=7>::;,@@
@@0,$#,#,E
>::;E,,,#EC ,
#,E>::6F4
@#,#
,$#,E)
>::5!E,>::5#!E#’*!E
,E@,
#,##
$#E
, 0>::9,#$FA3
E >::=,$#
,$@
##,####
,>::=,>::?,/
,
76>=B
;95>B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 15
( )
E>::5E)"E)%,#,,
#"%$#
,,E)
($##@
/@C
##@
#@@##$###
#,
)
))
#
E
#)
))
F #
#
E !E E
"%
3
##
"%
#
"%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 16
!
! 98688?<6>9>56<;87??7<85??:8<
7797=787>6 >?5::776::
"##=59>7?=75:6?=9;9=7 868:::
&@ @ @ @
#@ @ @ @
$ 87>>5?;<87?>;6?<89?:85;<7;99:8<
%
%’##
& "%
( )
C##
#+#C
#,$#
),#,
,#$,#
?8?B
9?75B
9899B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 17
/ 0$&1
#-#@
##
&,#
,(#
#1
@-#
@)
@E#
@##
@#
@#
@#
@)$#
#4AA"7%
"6%#$,$&A
&(##
A
A
">%
$
#
$"9%
)
EE
)
E
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 18
!
! 96;6>;<679=7;<6788>=<6:;>69<
>95;7:5?>;::>=::
"##888657 8785?>87;;7>867:8;
&@ @ @ @
#879=85?9 96:96:
$ 658?>7<;586:8<;5:=8:<;;>6>:<
%
& "%
%’##
/ 0$&1
>::=##
-8>::5,/
,
>78:B
:9>B
5;98B
*&/
::5B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E
$#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 19
/1
##8;:::H
’$#C
/)C.,
.#./..
"%.#CD
#@@,./
#A,>::=,6@
#,#
@A@#,$#’
!#
A
A
">%
$
#
$"9%
)
EE
)
E
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 20
!
! 75:9>8<765879<7;569><996869<
87?8 >?;5 8:::8>::
"##88:6:8>?96 8987:8979:
&@ @ @ @
#8;:@ @ @
$ 7=7:>><757:9;<7=>;5><9;:;?9<
& "%
%
%’##
/1
##,##
’*!E+#"@
’*!E%,,
’*!E
,>::=##$#C>::=
#@,$
:>;B
788B
?;;7B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 21
&1 !
,#I#(#&
C,#
3I#(#&$A
@A(#,I#D
*#
#
E>::556A&,&#
,/
#$A#
$#
A
#DI#&(#
I#(##(#
#(#=
#
(#
"=%
4&
"56%
#DI#&(#
I#(##(#
#(#=
#
(#
"=%
4&
"56%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 22
!
! =6=876<?8>?5><?;=>:9<8:8?895<
88;9 8688 9:::9:::
"##7?5;;75=:;6>56:6556:
&@ @ @ @
#@ @ @ @
$ =??:;6<?6>>=?<8:>9?69<8:=:=?5<
%
& "%
%’##
&1 !
##I#
,
&##!A
(##
:75B 679B
?9>?B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 23
( /*
A#+,#(
A8D>F,0C
’#@##
#
4(@@
"%##
,@#
@’# C#
,AE
E
3#
*
&
(*
3#
E"7%
3#
E4&
">%
3#
E4#&
(#E"6%
&
(
"86%">%
A
"6%
E
3#
*
&
(*
3#
E"7%
3#
E4&
">%
3#
E4#&
(#E"6%
&
(
"86%">%
A
"6%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 24
!
! 9796;5<96967=<9=9766<68:5=7<
=8?>8 8:;588 89:6::89:6::
"##>?>?79 78;>8=67?68>67;;9>
&@ @ @ @
#@ @ @ @
$ =:?9>><=559;5<88;97;5<88=5?>6<
& "%
%
%’##
( /*
E>::5A##<85;:::/
"%#,#A,#
A>::=#,#,
97::B
88=7B
9685B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 25
! 1
+,C
,,$##
E,$,#
C#
E>::=+,#,688>
8=6@,7@
/=?B-##
’’
)4
*#
4
’
"8:%*#";%
*">;%* 4
"7%
*"6%#">%’
*
EEE
*
EE
"9%
4
’
#
*";%
’4
"7%
#$A
*
*
’’
)4
*#
4
’
"8:%*#";%
*">;%* 4
"7%
*"6%#">%’
*
EEE
*
EE
"9%
4
’
#
*";%
’4
"7%
#$A
*
*
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 26
%’##
! 1
->::=#C,#/#
#,#,/C1
*<86:::@,#
###,,/#E
,##,-#,
#
*<6:::@C,
,!##
#,#,
#,$#
#4F)<6:::@,#,$
#,C
4A<6::@/####
4,,CC
<6>6:@ ,
<=56:>::5<89:::>::=$#
#
)<>:::@,#,
,>::5!A
&C<76::@##
C#,=::+C,#
##
+F,7,$#
/7
)<>:::@/4
&/!
4)A<>>:::@/(
<>>7#=::+(
?=
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 27
!
! 68869>5<6697>98<6?;6?=><;8=67>8<
8:7>:;8:6959 85::6:8===6:
"##;:6;9?6=:59:69::57 66>797
#;6 ;5?6::;::
$ 6=>9795<;>7:879<;;5;;:6<;?>5889<
%
& "%
>57B
5?5B *&/
::8B
=?>?B
1
/
1*#
@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
(* (! #/
A<>7:::@’$&/#
#,$’*!E()
#E#4E)
,,,$,
’$ ,/<>7:::
,/
4*@#)#<69:::@##8??7
C#89(,
##/,
$4
@FAC<>::::@,#,+FA
,$
F##,$)
E)>::=C,#
#,/##
<8::::@,/,##
,
A/<88::@/,/@/,
F####
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 28
/
’$A####
+#,#C#
#+#
##’$
9>6:>::;#,#7?5:>::6,#
:BA
>::6
##+#>::=###,
#,,$#
A
3
*
3
A
3
8
A#"7%
*"9%
>
’"8%
A#"8%
*"9%
8
A#"7%
*"9%
>
’"8%
A#"8%
*"9%
8
A#"7%
*"9%
>
’"8%
A#"8%
*"9%
3
#4
’
’
A
3
*
3
A
3
8
A#"7%
*"9%
>
’"8%
A#"8%
*"9%
8
A#"7%
*"9%
>
’"8%
A#"8%
*"9%
8
A#"7%
*"9%
>
’"8%
A#"8%
*"9%
3
#4
’
’
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 29
!
! >>7756:<>9>6??8<>9?9=?5<>58>7=:<
5?7:=88?659 ;>:?=?7;9=
"##>;>;:?7>85=:8??6>5 >>7:?>
&688>@ @ @
#@ @ @ @
$ >6=:55?<>=;5796<>56;6>><7:>?8>:<
%’##
& "%
/
%
A->::=#??B>::5#
# @@A##
4)A(#<>::::>::=
#>::5
A,A&#<7>:::C,>8
C
57;B
78:B
=?69B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 30
(
E#
#
#
3#
A&(#I#E
#
#
E##>::=>;@8@
#>::5##,
,J,>::::#
#+,,
C/#
#@,
/#C=6>>>5:=
,>::;#<>=?5875
E
3#
*
&
(*
3#
E"7%
3#
E4&
">%
3#
E4#&
(#E"6%
&
(
"86%">%
A
"6%
E
3#
*
&
(*
3#
E"7%
3#
E4&
">%
3#
E4#&
(#E"6%
&
(
"86%">%
A
"6%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 31
%’##
(
1 @3#*5E#,#
#,##
#D3#>::=)
3#@<88?::::
&@<>7::::
@<8?::::
#@<85::::
*@<8>:::
@<85?>:::
’#1 @&(*,86A&&(6
&(#E#
#D3#>::=)
"@%@<8?::::
)(#@<86?:::
0(#"A’##%@<8;::::
4&@0)#
@<6:?:::
1 @>
E4#
###
#D3#>::=)
3’@<6::::
#’@<86:::
’@<7::::
@<?6:::
/&*1 @A6F$
#+,##,1
#"#%
3#
(
A8D>
F,0
#
-(#@@#
A#,!A
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 32
!
! 89;569=<86??>7=<85:785?<855859;<
8;=5??977 8>6::886::
"##888;66 ?9:65 55;>5 ;?;>5
#8;?69 8;687 @ @
$ 8;87:7;<@< 858?>98<@< 85?77:;<@< 8=6>=57<
%
(
& "%
:;>B 756B
?6;7B
1
/
1*#
@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 33
!23 +
F$##
F$1&##*J#F#
#-E#
>::=#$
#,,
####
# #E,,#
&##J#
#E##,,#+#
@$
0##>::=
F$
*&#J F$
A A
&##
#
&##
#&##
"9%
A
">%
E
">%"6%
">%"8:%"88%
F$
*&#J F$
A A
&##
#
&##
#&##
"9%
A
">%
E
">%"6%
">%"8:%"88%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 34
!
! 589868<59=87=<5;;?75< K 5?7877<
77=>6=9>5:::;:::
"##86==:77;59 >6;6:K 7796:
&@ @ @ @
#@ 78>5 @ @
$ 577987<5?:5=8<5??6=5<=7>6=7<
%
!23 +
%’##
& "%
/#$#?6B
##F,F
F>::=/<6>::::
,
:5>B
9:>B
?6>;B
1
/
1*#
@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 35
!23 +
&##F$F
,$D)
##@#
##
#+C
##F)#"F)%
#
,(#@
,##
C
&##))#
#@#@#,
J#,
,E##>::6
&##@"5%#"8%&#
"8%&## #"8%&###"9%&##
,,>::9#"8&##8
%$#
4,
,,C#@@,#,
#
F$
*&#J F$
A A
&##
#
&##
#&##
"9%
A
">%
E
">%"6%
">%"8:%"88%
F$
*&#J F$
A A
&##
#
&##
#&##
"9%
A
">%
E
">%"6%
">%"8:%"88%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 36
!
! 6;9868<;96=66<;;:9;?<;?:688<
;95:9:>7 =9::?:::
"##5;;:?56?:?5;977 =6;58
&@ @ @ @
#@ @ @ @
$ ;95>7:<5>65=5<5967:><5=68=><
& "%
!23 +
%
%’##
>::=#>::5#<7?==:"676B%
/
>::=,
##,3/$3,#
&##,$#,04(
(8::(5,&/3,$#
,
$37;
886B
8:?8B
=5?9B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 37
!23 +
*#
,’$#
+C####$#
#,#/+
+##+
#,’$
#,$
E##,$#,
C
#8>7#A#>::=
##
F$
*&#J F$
A A
&##
#
&##
#&##
"9%
A
">%
E
">%"6%
">%"8:%"88%
F$
*&#J F$
A A
&##
#
&##
#&##
"9%
A
">%
E
">%"6%
">%"8:%"88%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 38
!
! 8:88597<8:5?;5;<88=?6=:<8>8?68;<
>;6=56 >?;?6>7:66::778:::
"##88:5?;7 8:>78>8 =::6=7 =;8=?=
&@ =;7?@ @
#;97:@ @ @
$ >7?>:88<>9:=7==<>>?6;;7<>98>989<
%
& "%
%’##
!23 +
>::=#>::5#1#
,,###.#.
##0 #/
*-,>::=
875>B
7657B
6:66B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 39
!+)
$)#1)F,(
&&"F(&&%0)4&$
&C)*#+)’$
#$)F
#@,
&C)EA#!A$
)
,
,#
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 40
)
4! &$>5:899;<>=98?6;<769:=69<756:8?5<
5"!5:56 59=6 @ @
( 675;>=8688 6;9:>6;9:>
#/ 876;985 88:5;6=8:55>>:8:6=85:
856=;55>89 @ @
))=>7:79 ;667;9 =:5:;8 =>::;8
$(9657:>@ 8:::::56:::
(( 58=865:=:::8;::
* 8?667 >;6?6 8=;::898::
$ )697;=?7<95??767<6;:=875<655667:<
6) 88>757?<8>:>;=;<8>>7769<8>6:;??<
) 8>=7=?8 8>?7:7>878?;::876=7=>
!+*867>?5=8;:=>;>87777=>875568=
3 988968 97=?58 96>:=6 9;;;55
=>;5?7 6:==?6 >5;6?=>==?=>
7#*@ @8::788?8:77>58
&@ @ @ @
$ 685==6><6:68=9;<6;:=875<655667:<
%’##
!+)
& "%)
& "%
%2&1
85=?B
$
>7=6B
)
>76>B
*#+)
>8;;B&
6::B
F,
=:=B
*#+)
)
$
F,
&
E>::=,# 1A($#$
@#$#)#
2$$’*$$,F,(0
###F,(0#
$F,
$
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 41
6)
*#+)##
###
,#;:::
# #*$
,7:@#E
#,#*#8?:F
89:#$$$
*#+);6#$)
,)*#+)
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 42
!
! ;9:9::<;=>777<;=65=8<588>>><
9:6:8 9;=96 ;?=7>;;=?>
"##9>=;88 9;:>75 9;5598 95>6=6
&@ @ @ @
#89>>5 87>58 @ @
$ 88>757?<8>:>;=;<8>>7769<8>6:;??<
%
& "%
%’##
6)
>::=*#+)##,
#C$)
F,###
75=:B
676B
6;=6B
1
/
1*#
@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 43
)
)C$,,
,),)##
,,/+#+#
/C$#,
,E#’$3
#-(#$$#C
$
)#;6#
,,*#+)
/5:C$
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 44
!
! ;=?7:8<;=7876<576?9><5;6??=<
86=>:7 85:>9?8;:7::8;58::
"##9789:5 97?;9=98876=987>=9
&@ @ 8>:::8>:::
#9?=:@ @ @
$ 8>=7=?8<8>?7:7><878?;::<876=7=><
%
& "%
%’##
)
#/C#
,E>::5&##
,,# ,#
C$,&C#
),##
8>7:B
7:9>B
6;9:B
*
:==B
1
/
1*
#@
1
1/
/
*1&CD
*1*#
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 45
!+*
$$6>$#
F ,(&&F$,$$
,$$#E,
,#/6::,,
$##$
$#
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 46
!
! =;9787<?:?8>><?77;>5<?;876;<
8:95;;8877::?>5::?>5::
"##6;86:?6=6=>:7:::66 78;9;>
&>7?:@ 5:::5:::
#@ >:@ @
$ 867>?5=<8;:=>;><87777=><875568=<
%
& "%
%’##
!+*
>::=#,# 1#$,$
$#$,###
$#
/#,E
;57B
;?5?B
*
:68B
>>?5B
1
/
1*#
@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$
#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 47
3 ’ -3’.
F,(&&"F(&&%#
## ,86:
*#>=:::
###
$,*,$
,##C
F(&&#>>68>>6@
,@####
##
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 48
!
! 7586:5<7=>?87<7?9>67<9:9;5=<
8=88?>7:7>>>7::>>;6:
"##>89:9 78?>5 7667>7?79?
&@ @ @ @
#9>8 8:??@ @
$ 988968<97=?58<96>:=6<9;;;55<
%
& "%
%’##
3 ’ -3’.
E ,>::5F,#$#,
.#,.#,,##
E >::=#,#
E##,
#,###
9=;B
=97B
=;58B
1
/
1*
#@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E
$#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 49
8) "
&#
##5::::$#’
$>::::$
#,,$
#,# &*$F’
$,,&
#-#,
##,#,#
&,
,#@,FFF
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 50
!
! ?8>69<?9;?5<?;;;7<??>?5<
>?>;=87??;898::8=9::
"##5:7=6=9:::=6 8;6=76 858>=6
&@ 885 @ @
#>987 @ @ @
$ =>;5?7<6:==?6<>5;6?=<>==?=><
%
& "%
%’##
8) "
&#
#,#
,##
&&*#
797;B
;75B
6?>5B
1
/
1*#
@
1
*1&CD
*&/1E$#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 51
!+") 7#*
&C$,$)
##-C,#
##$C
1#.C.
#,$,
C-
+
-&C,$/";%
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
$)
#
3#0#$)&
)
"7%
4
#"6%A
"8:%
&C0">>6%
*4
)"6%
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 52
!
! @<@<99::;9<9;87:8<
@ @ 9898::97>:6:
"##@ @ 89:>8:87:?7?
&@ @ @ @
$@ @ =59;=?=8
#@ @ @ @
$ @<@< 8::788?<8:77>58<
%
%’##
& "%
!+") 7#*
E>::5&C##.#C##
#$##/C,,#
&CC##
*/###,C###
&A,#C#
8>;5B
98=8B
99;9B
*
:==B
1
/
1*
#@
1
1
//
*1&CD
*1*#
*&/1E
$#
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 53
!
!
"
#$%& !
#$%&
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 54
’()
*
##&
!!!"#$!%# #&
’&!()$ !’ ’#! *$!)
+)’!+,$!!!!!$’!)#!’&$
)’!’&$#*-.& /) 0 1./02"
! ’) &$ )
&’!!"# $!) ’)*!#’’!
"’ #3!)’ ’#!) ) !#’!))
’*4 )’)")!$$ $!!%##
&$$#) )’*+$50*6#,(!)!
!#’#"’$ )!’)’!*
$(’ #)!#00$0 0$!7
*!&# ’)&#!$#!
& )! ’*
,#"’(
’
0#!+4)0#!
,#"’(
+!
8!0#8!0#
4))
,9’
/)
4))
,)
+!
4))
’’12
8!
0#12
-!
0’
.&
0’12 0#0&&12
/’12 /’12 /’12
,#"’(
’
0#!+4)0#!
,#"’(
+!
8!0#8!0#
4))
,9’
/)
4))
,)
+!
4))
’’12
8!
0#12
-!
0’
.&
0’12 0#0&&12
/’12 /’12 /’12
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 55
+#
,!::
-$
.&:::
+/&"
#.:::
..
0
!+#
$*/+/&
1 ::
+*:
#*
*/ !::
!
#$%&
%& !
%&2&/&/
’()
#$%& !
’ !:$&$&#’#*/99’’!#!
$ ’ ’)&$;*!"& ,
;**$ ’!#!""!<$’$
&)&&’’!!!& #!# ’ ’"!0&/
%# *
#)!#)$!"!’*;<!’!&
&$#*7&#’!#!’& *’#"’&&$
*’#"’&&$*’$$#’’"’$!
’ !!!’!"’&"!#*
8"#!)#!’’#!!<*.! #9’!"<!!
&&#’# 1’#2’#!!<*
+#
*=
&#
*=
0’
*=
0#
*=
,0’
*=
,0’>-!"&<
0#>&&’)!:
’
0’>+’#’#’#
’>’<&<!
+#>4%# ?
&#>)&&#!
4<>.!"(’)
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 56
’()
*
##&
00$ ! ’’ &&’
’ ’!&&’"*-.& /) 0 #!
’! &’’ *-’ ) "
!!’))&#’#*-’’ ’) ’
$’!& &$"’!’*
$")&$)’ ’’!"/+#’
4 0’1/+402*$)!/ 0*,#$
!!!’)!/7*
$(’ #)!#$$ $!
*!&# ’)&#!$#!
& )! ’*
,#"’(
’
0#!+4)0#!
,#"’(
+!
8!0#8!0#
4))
,9’
/)
4))
,)
+!
4))
’’12
8!
0#12
-!
0’
.&
0’12 0#0&&12
/’12 /’12 /’12
,#"’(
’
0#!+4)0#!
,#"’(
+!
8!0#8!0#
4))
,9’
/)
4))
,)
+!
4))
’’12
8!
0#12
-!
0’
.&
0’12 0#0&&12
/’12 /’12 /’12
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 57
+#
.&:::
+/&"
::
#.::::
0
!+#
$*/+/&
1 ::
+*::
#*
*/ !:::
!
%&2&/&/
%& !
#$%& !
#$%&
’()
00$$’"=& *’#"’&*’#"’&*
’!!#&&#!!&&#’#’ <!#*
/+40’):/+40"$()!#’ #&’!*
!#’#!$ &!’)&$*- /+40)"’(
’))&# #&$&$*/+40’)’’#&< =&<!#"#!)
’#!)’ ) !&)&#!*
-! !!&&@8#!:&#!&! #
@8#!&! ’!!*A))&#!")’"#)&#
#&!!’’!*
8"#!)#!’’#!!<*.! #9’!"<!!&
&#’# 1’#2’#!!<*
,0’
*=0#
*=
0’
*=
&#
*=
+#
*=
,0’>-!"&<
0#>&&’)!:’
0’>+’#’#’#
’>’<&<!
+#>4%# ?
&#>)&&#!
4<>.!"(’)
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 58
’()
*
##&
A’’+!&$()3!’’!!& <! #’!$’’"
!$"#()!1&##2$)!1’2!’’&)#)&#:<!
#* ’" #:& !’ ’’"’!$
’!"&&*,#"’(-! !))’’!
’!’’&’$!!!::!#’’!%#& #"’*
’#:’’$/) ")BB!<!#)BB*
,#"’(
’
0#!+4)0#!
,#"’(
+!
8!0#8!0#
4))
,9’
/)
4))
,)
+!
4))
’’12
8!
0#12
-!
0’
.&
0’12 0#0&&12
/’12 /’12 /’12
,#"’(
’
0#!+4)0#!
,#"’(
+!
8!0#8!0#
4))
,9’
/)
4))
,)
+!
4))
’’12
8!
0#12
-!
0’
.&
0’12 0#0&&12
/’12 /’12 /’12
,#"’$(! !’&’!! ’$&
’!&#&&*!& ! !#&!$$#"’
$(!*
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 59
+#
.&
+/&"
0
!+#
$*/+/&
1 ::::
+*::::
#*
*/ !::::
!
’()
%&2&/&/
#$%&
#$%& !
.!$) $’)!::#:$) ’))#’#’& $
’#’’*+’?!’)#"!’#’’*-!’!"+#’
#!"’<!#&##"!&’"8’0!8#!
)!%#&#!’##"!3#& !*0!’!#!
’& **"’’*’’’’&<)
’’*
&0!) ) $!*$’$!)$*.$&
)’<!!’’) ’#! "#! #:& !*
’’$’#!’ ’!):!!!$’’&&#&
’) *+!"))<!)!’’))
’#!&!$)’! !&)’’)) ’ ’’)!! (
!# ) &&’ *+ "!$#$3!
$) !#!&&’’’)’$’&&’#0+74&#!)*
C+#"!)0+74&#!)10’+ 7’’)!4 2
#’&&’&!)’#"!’’)’’!’ !:*
’!"!’D&#!!’#"!’’#$&$& ’"!
’)’*.$’!< 0+74&#!)& +#*0+74&#!)
’#’ & )")<’’!"*
E!$# !!#$!)&)$)"&$’’)&
*) $!’!#’!’!’’!%##"
<’)&"))))’)!) #&’’*-< $:!&!
!#’!!$’*
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 60
’()
%& !
,0’
*=&#
*=
0’
*=
0#
*=
,0’>-!"&<
0#>&&’)!:’
0’>+’#’#’#
’>’<&<!
+#>4%# ?
&#>)&&#!
4<>.!"(’)
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 61
’()
*
##&
0 ! ’’ &&’
’ ’!&&’"*$!)+!!0 /) ,
!! &&##$%#’) !!"/,#+-)’1/,+-2
!$!!’*-.& /) 0 " !&’’&!$
!& ’! & * $
)))!’ ’&’#! # *-&"#!&
&!" $’ !!") !)#)’ ) *
$(’ #)!#$$ $!
*!&# ’)&#!$#!
& )! ’*
,#"’(
’
0#!+4)0#!
,#"’(
+!
8!0#8!0#
4))
,9’
/)
4))
,)
+!
4))
’’12
8!
0#12
-!
0’
.&
0’12 0#0&&12
/’12 /’12 /’12
,#"’(
’
0#!+4)0#!
,#"’(
+!
8!0#8!0#
4))
,9’
/)
4))
,)
+!
4))
’’12
8!
0#12
-!
0’
.&
0’12 0#0&&12
/’12 /’12 /’12
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 62
+#
.&
+/&"
::::
#.:::
0
!+#
$*/+/&
1 ::
+*::
#*
*/ !
!
%& !
#$%&
%&2&/&/
’()
#$%& !
0 $"!’##’&’ ) !
’#!! ’ $ *’&"’’)&)B$&
!!’)’)& #!!’ ’#*&$"**
#&#!"’! ’!! ’"!&’
*8!-)’’!)#$’"’’&#*
8"#!)#!’’#!!<*.! #9’!"<!!&
&#’# 1’#2’#!!<*
+#
*=
&#
*=
4<
*=
0’
*=
0#
*=
,0’
*=
,0’>-!"&<
0#>&&’)!:’
0’>+’#’#’#
’>’<&<!
+#>4%# ?
&#>)&&#!
4<>.!"(’)
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 63
!
" #$
$!
!
%
&!’!"
’!#
$()
* + " "
$!!,*
!"# $ ! !#"%%$ "$&’!%!# # $
# &%’$" #$ # "$$$!$()*$!+ #,)!#"%%!
!"# $ $$!%"!$!!%#"!%## -% ! ##!!"
!.! %# #! ##-%# ! &# ! #%!!$& %#$$
’-/$-/"$ 0"$"1#$-01)
(% 2###2"!$$"01$!"##-$$".,3!4!0
#2"5$& #6$ &6$ &$+ #, 5$& -/## /#)01$ !# $
$$07"!$#89# #2"7 !$%:$!;+ #,<$"$" % "$$$!
#$!###2"!)07$#!’&$$$""!!
# 01# $!$"$&! #$!%#! !!"$ $01 $&!$! $
%##$$$ $!%#!$&# ’$$ $#&# !)
$$##- 7#%$!7" %5!$& =
1#$-5=1-$)$!- !#$&$ -$$()*$!+ #,&$! $" &!
$$"!$&$%$" -#"%# 7$"##!)/$-/"$"!
#"!%#%#$%# !#"#$#!$# # !)!% #!%5=1-
#"! ’!%$%# !#"#!$! -!$!%#%#$##2"!)>-
!%!" !’!%##!$& ##!!)9$!$&$%$"
$%# !#"#!% "$&/$-$%# #$" #-# !# $$%# !#"#! %%#"!
5=1-"$ 7$ ’- %#’&- #)01 ! !
/$-/"$$!#?$# #$!-)1!$##!$5=1-" 7")
#"% 7 ’ #, %/$-)1!%1&! #, %/$-$!
)$! #, !/$--$)@ ’-
!)#!- %$! $"# !%%#
$"$! #!%$"# ! 7 ’ #, $)( %%$#$ #, !#$#%$ "#$%$" $
$"’#)- $!$" ! #%’&)1$!$ #$%
5=1- #!$!’$&!% $%# !#"# -!$!$+ #,<$" # )
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 64
&
$
$
$,(""
(
(
&
* &
$!!,* &
’!#
&!’!"
(#$"!
)A
($!
)A
+#! (#$"!
)A
+#! (#$"!.1! #- ’%$
7!!
($!.B%%$"# $ &#
" $
(#$"!./# " !#$"!
$!# "$$$!# $#!
# !%#!B.B# $&# !%#!
#%!
B#07!!.@#! ’ ,
" #&!
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (8a)
Subject: Resolutions Adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax Levy and HRA Levy Page 65
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a resolution adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This program provides a method for replacing, upgrading and repairing the City’s capital assets.
The funding for purchases contemplated in 2008 is adequate assuming the utility financing plans
are approved. Good financial planning requires us to examine our needs on a long range basis.
This program allows the City Council to review plans and evaluate each project as well as plan
for the necessary funding. The Council reviewed the CIP at a study session in November and
December.
BACKGROUND:
The CIP is presented to show all of the projects that are currently being contemplated. The
inclusion of a project in this plan does not automatically mean that its construction or purchase is
imminent. The timing and exact nature of any improvement are subject to change based on
Council direction. Any purchases beyond 2008 are more uncertain because estimates become
less accurate the further out they extend.
The Capital Improvements Program was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December
12th as required by statute and found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Equipment Replacement Fund
The Equipment Replacement Fund covers replacement of wheeled equipment and vehicles. This
fund is replenished on an annual basis through charges paid by each department in their
operating budgets. This fund has a large cash balance, but the replacement schedule has
sufficient variability that we dip into the cash reserves when several costly vehicles are replaced
in the same year.
This fund is beginning to cover some non-wheeled equipment at this time. Staff intends to
identify the city’s major non-wheeled equipment, establish a replacement cycle, and determine a
funding source in 2008.
Municipal Building Fund (MBF)
This fund covers building maintenance, landscaping, and small remodeling projects for all
municipal buildings except park buildings. This fund is projected to have some cash available to
cover 2008 projects with the transfer in of $350,000, which is an action on the consent agenda.
This fund does not have a consistent source of funding other than transfers.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b) Page 2
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program
Park Improvement Fund (PIF)
This fund covers building maintenance, landscaping, trails, and small remodeling projects for all
parks and park buildings. Additional projects are anticipated in the out years of this fund as a
more complete replacement cycle plan is prepared.
Pavement Management Fund
This fund covers annual improvements on non-Minnesota State Aid (MSA) roads in the city.
Taking into consideration a modest increase in franchise fees and the levy established for this
program, this fund has sufficient funding to complete all of the anticipated projects over the
upcoming 5 years, but uses up most of its fund balance in the process. This may lead to
unrealistic expectations of how much road work can be accomplished annually given the current
level of funding.
This fund was designed with the idea that it would fund $1,500,000 in projects, adjusted annually
for inflation, and be funded by a property tax levy and the franchise fees. Because we are unable
to increase the franchise fees unless Xcel Energy asks the PUC for a rate increase (a request is
currently being considered), we are constrained in using franchise fees to fully cover anticipated
future expenses. Although not an immediate issue, in the future the Council will need to discuss
whether to raise property taxes to cover all the projects or to direct staff to reschedule projects
based on available funds.
Technology Replacement Fund
This fund covers replacement of all computers, network infrastructure, and software for the city.
This fund has no consistent funding source other than transfers. This fund will have to be
examined as part of long-range financial planning.
Unfunded Projects
Several large projects are anticipated but the funding mechanisms have not been decided by the
City Council. As we continue on the public input process, we will get better estimates of the
full cost. Some of the items are speculative and may not be funded through the CIP.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Replacement of obsolete equipment and infrastructure is expected to reduce the maintenance
costs to the city.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Resolution
CIP Summary Sheets
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b) Page 3
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program
RESOLUTION NO. 07-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2008-2012
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a
report from the Finance Director related to proposed capital spending for 2008-2012; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain and replace its capital stock in order to
enhance the city’s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the City Council
and staff exercise over the physical plant of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, MN, that:
1. The 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program is hereby adopted.
2. The City Manager is authorized to purchase items included in the fiscal year 2008 funded
portion of the plan as allowed by the City Charter and state statutes.
3. All purchases required to be competitively bid must come before the City Council for final
approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT
2008 2012thru
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
Cable TV
Cable TV
6,000 6,000Replacement NL Edit systems
9,000 9,000Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel units
36,000 36,000Cameras & pan tilt heads
4,000 4,000Video server
4,000 4,000Controller for Chambers cameras
5,000 5,000Public address system
3,000 3,000Replacement digital camcorder
3,000 3,000Replacement digital camcorder
6,000 58,000 6,000 70,000Category Sub-Total
6,000 58,000 6,000 70,000Department Total:
6,000 58,000 6,000 70,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 4
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2008 2012thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Time Warner Equipment Grant
20080006 6,0006,000Replacement NL Edit systems 2
20090006 9,0009,000Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel units 2
20090007 36,00036,000Cameras & pan tilt heads 2
20090008 4,0004,000Video server 2
20090009 4,0004,000Controller for Chambers cameras 2
20090011 5,0005,000Public address system 2
20100006 3,0003,000Replacement digital camcorder 2
20100007 3,0003,000Replacement digital camcorder 2
70,0006,000 58,000 6,000Time Warner Equipment Grant Total
70,0006,000 58,000 6,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 5
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT
2008 2012thru
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
Fire
Fire-Equipment
312,000 312,000SCBA Replacement
312,000 312,000Category Sub-Total
312,000 312,000Department Total:
312,000 312,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 6
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2008 2012thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Equipment Replacement Fund
20082400 312,000312,000SCBA Replacement 3
312,000312,000Equipment Replacement Fund Total
312,000312,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 7
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT
2008 2012thru
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
Inspections
Facilities Projects
95,000 95,000City Hall / Police Station Landscaping
50,000 50,000MSC Security
11,000,000 11,000,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement
1,800,000 1,800,000MSC Complex Expansion
40,000 40,000MSC Floor Drains
40,000 40,000City Hall 3rd Floor Space Reallocation
350,000 350,000City Hall Exterior
100,000 100,000MSC Storage Bins
25,000 25,000Westwood Wind Genset
200,000 200,000City Hall 1st Floor Space Reallocation
150,000 150,000City Hall Parking Lot Above Garage
700,000 12,950,000 200,000 13,850,000Category Sub-Total
700,000 12,950,000 200,000 13,850,000Department Total:
700,000 12,950,000 200,000 13,850,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 8
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2008 2012thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.O. Bonds
20081700 11,000,00011,000,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 2
20081900 1,800,0001,800,000MSC Complex Expansion 3
12,800,00012,800,000G.O. Bonds Total
Municipal Building Fund
20061600 95,00095,000City Hall / Police Station Landscaping 4
20071300 50,00050,000MSC Security 2
20082000 40,00040,000MSC Floor Drains 3
20082100 40,00040,000City Hall 3rd Floor Space Reallocation 4
20082700 350,000350,000City Hall Exterior 3
20082800 100,000100,000MSC Storage Bins 3
20082900 25,00025,000Westwood Wind Genset n/a
20091600 200,000200,000City Hall 1st Floor Space Reallocation 3
20091700 150,000150,000City Hall Parking Lot Above Garage n/a
1,050,000700,000 150,000 200,000Municipal Building Fund Total
13,850,000700,000 12,950,000 200,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 9
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT
2008 2012thru
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
Parks & Recreation
PR-Basketball
6,000 6,000Justad Park Basketball Court Resurface
15,000 15,000Jackley Park Basketball and Trail Overlay
7,500 7,500Roxbury Park Basketball Court and Trail
80,000 80,000Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth Aquila Nelson Parks
28,500 80,000 108,500
Category Sub-Total
PR-Buildings
190,000 190,000Building Replacement - Fern Hill Park
40,000 40,000Carpenter Park Concession Building
6,000 6,000Energy Audit
180,000 180,000Building Replacement - Birchwood Park
10,000 10,000Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement
30,000 30,000Aquila Park Storage Building - Replace and Move
236,000 180,000 10,000 30,000 456,000
Category Sub-Total
PR-Dog Park
15,000 15,000Off-Leash Dog Park Second Location
15,000 15,000Category Sub-Total
PR-Equipment
50,000 50,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement
1,045,710 426,443 1,108,048 474,047 1,638,106 4,692,354 4,656,764Annual Equipment Replacement Program
1,045,710 426,443 1,108,048 474,047 1,688,106 4,742,354 4,656,764
Category Sub-Total
PR-Fencing
45,000 45,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 3)
48,000 48,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 4)
45,000 48,000 93,000Category Sub-Total
PR-Field
52,000 52,000Aquila Park Lighting Upgrade - Field 2
25,000 25,000Bronx Park Field Improvements
100,000 100,000Aquila Park Field Lighting (Field 5)
15,000 15,000Field Rnvtn: Ainsworth, Keystone, Louisiana & Wlkr
77,000 100,000 15,000 192,000
Category Sub-Total
PR-General Parks Improvement
22,392 22,392 44,784Ford Park Redevelopment
50,000 50,000Beehive Relocation to a Park, Phase I
305,000 305,000Fern Hill Park Redevelopment
50,000 50,000Frisbee Golf Course
60,000 60,000Beehive Restoration Project, Phase II
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 10
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
5,000 5,000Skate Park Addition
100,000 100,000Dakota Park Fencing, Lights, Dugout & Storage Bldg
10,000 10,000Hurd Park Community Garden
12,000 12,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Addition
10,000 10,000Beehive Restoration Upgrade
6,000 6,000Park Maintenance Misc Trail and Asphalt Work
427,392 87,392 110,000 12,000 16,000 652,784
Category Sub-Total
PR-Irrigation
40,000 40,000Carpenter Park Irrigation
42,000 42,000Ainsworth Park Irrigation Addition
50,000 50,000Louisiana Oaks Park Irrigation Upgrade
40,000 42,000 50,000 132,000Category Sub-Total
PR-Parking Lot
185,000 185,000Aquila Park Parking Lot & Trail Reconstruction
25,000 25,000Lake Victoria Parking Lot Expansion
65,000 65,000Dakota Park Parking Lots Overlay
210,000 65,000 275,000Category Sub-Total
PR-Playgrounds
70,000 70,000Playground Equipment Replacement
120,000 120,000Playground Equipment Replacement
135,000 135,000Playground Equipment Replacement
125,000 125,000Playground Eqpt Rplcmt-Aquila, Dakota & Nelson Pks
70,000 70,000Playground Equipmnt Rpl - Blackstone & Jersey Prks
70,000 120,000 135,000 125,000 70,000 520,000
Category Sub-Total
PR-Rec Center
10,000 10,000Rec Center and Wolfe Park Amphitheater Landscaping
20,000 20,000Rec Center East Arena Rubber Floor Replacement
20,000 20,000Rec Center West Arena Rubber Floor Replacement
300,000 300,000Rec Center Dehumidification System
15,000 15,000Rec Center Offices Carpet Replacement
30,000 30,000Rec Center Sign and Banner Replacement
30,000 20,000 315,000 30,000 395,000Category Sub-Total
PR-Rec Center Pool
60,000 60,000Aquatic Park Sand/Water Play Area
60,000 60,000Category Sub-Total
PR-Shelters
35,000 35,000Sun Shelter Addition at Louisiana Oaks Park
15,000 15,000Oak Hill Park Reroof Central & Rustic Shelters
23,000 23,000Sun Shelter Addition at Willow Park
45,000 45,000Dakota Park Picnic Shlter Rmvl & Sun Shelter Adtn
23,000 23,000Cedar Manor Park Sunshelter
55,000 55,000Sun Shelter Addition - Jersey & Pennsylvania Parks
35,000 38,000 45,000 23,000 55,000 196,000
Category Sub-Total
PR-Tennis Courts
13,000 13,000Carpenter Park Tennis Court Resurface
15,000 15,000Senior High School Tennis Court Overlay
28,000 28,000Category Sub-Total
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 11
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
PR-Trails
40,000 40,000Trail Mill & Overlay (Jordan & Keystone Parks)
6,000 6,000Park Mtce Misc. Trail & Asphalt Work
35,000 35,000Cedar Lake Boulevard Trail from JCC West
50,000 50,000Dakota Park Trail Reconstruction
15,000 15,000Jersey Park Trail Overlay
30,000 30,000Walker Trail Replacement
6,000 6,000Park Mtce Misc. Trail & Asphalt Work
35,000 35,000Cedar Manor Park Trail Access
6,000 6,000Park Maintenance Misc Trail & Asphalt Work
46,000 136,000 41,000 223,000Category Sub-Total
PR-Trees
60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 300,000Tree Replacement
10,000 10,000City Wide Natural Resource Inventory
70,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 310,000
Category Sub-Total
PR-Turf
15,000 15,000Turf Upgrade at Oak Hill, Louisiana Oaks & Walker
15,000 15,000Category Sub-Total
PR-Westwood Nature Center
20,000 20,000Westwood Hills Front Electronic Entrance Gate/Fnce
20,000 20,000Westwood Hills Picnic Shelter Restrooms
20,000 20,000Westwood Hills Wood Stair Replacement
40,000 40,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph. I
31,000 31,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Section Replacement
40,000 40,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement Ph II
10,000 10,000Westwood Hills Trail Sign Replacement
40,000 40,000Westwood Hills Brick House Kitchen Replacement
35,000 35,000Westwood Hills Bridge Replacement
40,000 40,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph III
75,000 75,000Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement
25,000 25,000Westwood Hills Raptor Building
50,000 50,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement
60,000 40,000 81,000 265,000 446,000Category Sub-Total
2,062,602 1,495,835 2,197,048 1,090,047 2,014,106 8,859,638 4,656,764Department Total:
2,062,602 1,495,835 2,197,048 1,090,047 2,014,106 8,859,638 4,656,764GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 12
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2008 2012thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Equipment Replacement Fund
E - XX01 4,692,3541,045,710 426,443 1,108,048 474,047 1,638,106Annual Equipment Replacement Program n/a
4,692,3541,045,710 426,443 1,108,048 474,047 1,638,106Equipment Replacement Fund Total
Park Improvement Fund
20044230 44,78422,392 22,392Ford Park Redevelopment 1
20071010 300,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Tree Replacement 2
20080010 45,00045,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 3)n/a
20080020 50,00050,000Beehive Relocation to a Park, Phase I n/a
20080030 190,000190,000Building Replacement - Fern Hill Park n/a
20080040 40,00040,000Carpenter Park Concession Building n/a
20080050 10,00010,000City Wide Natural Resource Inventory 2
20080060 6,0006,000Energy Audit n/a
20080070 305,000305,000Fern Hill Park Redevelopment 3
20080080 50,00050,000Frisbee Golf Course 4
20080090 15,00015,000Jackley Park Basketball and Trail Overlay n/a
20080110 15,00015,000Off-Leash Dog Park Second Location n/a
20080120 70,00070,000Playground Equipment Replacement 2
20080130 10,00010,000Rec Center and Wolfe Park Amphitheater Landscaping n/a
20080140 20,00020,000Rec Center East Arena Rubber Floor Replacement n/a
20080150 7,5007,500Roxbury Park Basketball Court and Trail n/a
20080170 35,00035,000Sun Shelter Addition at Louisiana Oaks Park n/a
20080180 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Front Electronic Entrance Gate/Fnce n/a
20080190 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Picnic Shelter Restrooms n/a
20080200 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Wood Stair Replacement n/a
20090010 60,00060,000Aquatic Park Sand/Water Play Area n/a
20090020 52,00052,000Aquila Park Lighting Upgrade - Field 2 n/a
20090030 48,00048,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 4)n/a
20090040 185,000185,000Aquila Park Parking Lot & Trail Reconstruction n/a
20090050 60,00060,000Beehive Restoration Project, Phase II n/a
20090060 25,00025,000Bronx Park Field Improvements n/a
20090070 180,000180,000Building Replacement - Birchwood Park n/a
20090080 40,00040,000Carpenter Park Irrigation n/a
20090090 13,00013,000Carpenter Park Tennis Court Resurface 3
20090110 25,00025,000Lake Victoria Parking Lot Expansion n/a
20090120 15,00015,000Oak Hill Park Reroof Central & Rustic Shelters n/a
20090130 120,000120,000Playground Equipment Replacement 3
20090140 20,00020,000Rec Center West Arena Rubber Floor Replacement n/a
20090150 15,00015,000Senior High School Tennis Court Overlay n/a
20090160 5,0005,000Skate Park Addition n/a
20090170 23,00023,000Sun Shelter Addition at Willow Park n/a
20090180 40,00040,000Trail Mill & Overlay (Jordan & Keystone Parks)n/a
20090190 15,00015,000Turf Upgrade at Oak Hill, Louisiana Oaks & Walker n/a
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 13
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20090200 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph. I n/a
20100010 42,00042,000Ainsworth Park Irrigation Addition n/a
20100020 100,000100,000Aquila Park Field Lighting (Field 5)n/a
20100050 35,00035,000Cedar Lake Boulevard Trail from JCC West n/a
20100060 100,000100,000Dakota Park Fencing, Lights, Dugout & Storage Bldg n/a
20100070 65,00065,000Dakota Park Parking Lots Overlay n/a
20100080 45,00045,000Dakota Park Picnic Shlter Rmvl & Sun Shelter Adtn n/a
20100110 50,00050,000Dakota Park Trail Reconstruction n/a
20100120 10,00010,000Hurd Park Community Garden n/a
20100130 15,00015,000Jersey Park Trail Overlay n/a
20100140 135,000135,000Playground Equipment Replacement n/a
20100150 300,000300,000Rec Center Dehumidification System n/a
20100160 15,00015,000Rec Center Offices Carpet Replacement n/a
20100170 30,00030,000Walker Trail Replacement n/a
20100180 31,00031,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Section Replacement n/a
20100190 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement Ph II n/a
20100200 10,00010,000Westwood Hills Trail Sign Replacement n/a
20110010 23,00023,000Cedar Manor Park Sunshelter n/a
20110020 35,00035,000Cedar Manor Park Trail Access n/a
20110030 10,00010,000Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement n/a
20110040 50,00050,000Louisiana Oaks Park Irrigation Upgrade n/a
20110050 12,00012,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Addition n/a
20110060 125,000125,000Playground Eqpt Rplcmt-Aquila, Dakota & Nelson Pks n/a
20110070 30,00030,000Rec Center Sign and Banner Replacement n/a
20110080 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Brick House Kitchen Replacement n/a
20110090 35,00035,000Westwood Hills Bridge Replacement n/a
20110110 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph III n/a
20110120 75,00075,000Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement n/a
20110130 25,00025,000Westwood Hills Raptor Building n/a
20110140 50,00050,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement n/a
20120010 30,00030,000Aquila Park Storage Building - Replace and Move n/a
20120020 80,00080,000Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth Aquila Nelson Parks n/a
20120030 10,00010,000Beehive Restoration Upgrade n/a
20120040 15,00015,000Field Rnvtn: Ainsworth, Keystone, Louisiana & Wlkr n/a
20120050 70,00070,000Playground Equipmnt Rpl - Blackstone & Jersey Prks n/a
20120060 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement n/a
20120070 55,00055,000Sun Shelter Addition - Jersey & Pennsylvania Parks n/a
4,137,2841,010,892 1,063,392 1,083,000 610,000 370,000Park Improvement Fund Total
Parks & Recreation
20072010 6,0006,000Justad Park Basketball Court Resurface n/a
20092010 6,0006,000Park Mtce Misc. Trail & Asphalt Work n/a
20102010 6,0006,000Park Mtce Misc. Trail & Asphalt Work n/a
20112010 6,0006,000Park Maintenance Misc Trail & Asphalt Work n/a
20122010 6,0006,000Park Maintenance Misc Trail and Asphalt Work n/a
30,0006,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000Parks & Recreation Total
8,859,6382,062,602 1,495,835 2,197,048 1,090,047 2,014,106GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 14
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT
2008 2012thru
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
Police
Police-Equipment
54,000 54,000Firing Range Reconditioning
20,000 20,000Wi-Fi Cameras
74,000 74,000Category Sub-Total
TRF-Network
23,000 23,000Redundant Fiber Path
23,000 23,000Category Sub-Total
97,000 97,000Department Total:
97,000 97,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 15
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2008 2012thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Police & Fire Pension
20083000 54,00054,000Firing Range Reconditioning n/a
54,00054,000Police & Fire Pension Total
Technology Replacement Fund
20083100 20,00020,000Wi-Fi Cameras n/a
20083200 23,00023,000Redundant Fiber Path n/a
43,00043,000Technology Replacement Fund Total
97,00097,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 16
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT
2008 2012thru
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
Public Works
PW-Parking Lot
150,000 600,000 7,500 757,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project
150,000 600,000 7,500 757,500
Category Sub-Total
PW-Railroad Crossings
100,000 100,000Railroad Proj. - Crossing Protection @ 2 crossings
100,000 100,000
Category Sub-Total
PW-Reilly
35,000 35,000Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413)
35,000 35,000Category Sub-Total
PW-Retaining Walls
20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair
20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000
Category Sub-Total
PW-Sanitary Sewers
162,245 162,245Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #4)
65,000 65,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - FM Rehab (Park Ctr Blvd)
69,795 69,795Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #5)
20,000 262,500 282,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #17 & FM Rehab
160,000 160,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #6)
75,500 75,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #19 Generator & Controls
166,198 166,198Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #7)
166,198 166,198Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #8)
250,000 250,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #2 and FM Rehab
247,245 332,295 235,500 166,198 416,198 1,397,436
Category Sub-Total
PW-Sidewalks
85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs
85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 425,000
Category Sub-Total
PW-Storm Sewers
37,500 280,000 317,500Storm Water Project - Flood Area #32
100,000 100,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
250,000 250,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)
150,000 150,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
200,000 200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
50,000 1,400,000 1,450,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 17
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
200,000 200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
200,000 200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement
187,500 2,080,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 2,867,500
Category Sub-Total
PW-Street Lights
95,991 123,606 134,384 128,841 140,019 622,841 132,036Street Light Project - System Replacement
95,991 123,606 134,384 128,841 140,019 622,841 132,036
Category Sub-Total
PW-Streets
370,000 4,300,000 4,670,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)
2,900,000 2,900,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim)
1,360,696 13,225,000 14,585,696Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.
5,000 95,000 100,000Street Project - W44th Street
200,000 400,000 9,400,000 10,000,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction
1,360,000 1,360,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)
514,000 514,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab
5,000,000 5,000,000Street Project - Park Place Blvd
279,430 279,430Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)
65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
50,000 1,400,000 1,450,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)
3,000 167,000 170,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab
5,000 360,000 365,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab
350,000 350,000Street Project - Hwy 7 Merge Lane Mod @ Blake Road
1,492,962 1,492,962Street Project - W36th St Streetscape
282,341 282,341Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)
65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
35,000 890,097 925,097Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)
22,000 533,000 555,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6)
220,816 220,816Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)
65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
340,000 340,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements
40,000 1,053,852 1,093,852Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)
15,000 335,000 350,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 7)
225,232 225,232Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)
65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
60,000 1,575,664 1,635,664Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)
15,220 289,182 304,402Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 8)
229,737 229,737Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)
65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs
500,000 500,000 10,550,000 10,550,000 22,100,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.
61,000 61,000 1,264,121Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)
15,525 15,525 294,966Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 1)
50,000 1,950,000 2,000,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction
50,000 1,989,051 2,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction
10,814,088 20,703,341 3,092,913 12,304,304 29,025,159 75,939,805 1,559,087
Category Sub-Total
PW-Traffic Signals
250,000 250,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave
400,000 400,000Traffic Signal Project - Louisiana Ave @ Oxford St
30,000 470,000 500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St
30,000 470,000 500,000Traffic Signal - CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd.
11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000 60,000Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals
261,000 411,500 12,000 72,500 953,000 1,710,000
Category Sub-Total
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 18
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
PW-Water
45,000 490,000 535,000Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation
835,000 835,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #4
75,000 820,000 895,000Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation
146,000 146,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement
5,000 175,000 180,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement
50,000 50,000 531,700Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation
90,000 90,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement
250,000 250,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir WTP#6
364,000 364,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement
312,000 312,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement
10,000 790,000 800,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3
211,000 211,000Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement
1,031,000 740,000 1,160,000 374,000 1,363,000 4,668,000 531,700
Category Sub-Total
12,891,824 24,595,742 5,539,797 13,350,843 32,244,876 88,623,082 2,222,823Department Total:
12,891,824 24,595,742 5,539,797 13,350,843 32,244,876 88,623,082 2,222,823GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 19
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2008 2012thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Developer Agreement
20041700 69,00069,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
20071101 250,000250,000Street Project - Park Place Blvd 2
20092000 200,000200,000Traffic Signal Project - Louisiana Ave @ Oxford St 2
519,000250,000 269,000Developer Agreement Total
Development Fund - HRA Levy
20041700 1,864,7081,864,708Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
20092000 200,000200,000Traffic Signal Project - Louisiana Ave @ Oxford St 2
2,064,7082,064,708Development Fund - HRA Levy Total
Hennepin County
20040420 4,400,0004,400,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)3
20040440 2,500,0002,500,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim)5
20100005 235,000105,000 110,000 20,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements 5
7,135,000105,000 4,510,000 20,000 2,500,000Hennepin County Total
Met Council Grant
20082600 872,040872,040Street Project - W36th St Streetscape 2
872,040872,040Met Council Grant Total
Municipal State Aid
20071100 529,585529,585Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 2
20071101 195,000195,000Street Project - Park Place Blvd 2
20081100 170,000170,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 2
20081101 365,000365,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 2
20091100 555,000555,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6)3
20101100 350,000350,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 7)4
20111100 304,402304,402Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 8)4
2,468,987724,585 555,000 535,000 350,000 304,402Municipal State Aid Total
Other
TEMP-0001 17,50017,500Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413) 5
17,50017,500Other Total
Pavement Management Fund
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 20
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20071000 1,390,0001,390,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)2
20080001 242,288242,288Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)n/a
20080004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20081000 1,450,0001,450,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)2
20090001 244,456244,456Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)n/a
20090004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20091000 925,097925,097Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)3
20100001 182,173182,173Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)n/a
20100004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20101000 1,093,8521,093,852Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)4
20110001 185,816185,816Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)n/a
20110004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20111000 1,635,6641,635,664Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)4
20120001 189,533189,533Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)n/a
20120004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
7,788,8791,682,288 1,744,456 1,157,270 1,329,668 1,875,197Pavement Management Fund Total
PW Operations Budget
20080001 37,14237,142Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)n/a
20080003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20080004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20090001 37,88537,885Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)n/a
20090003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20090004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20100001 38,64338,643Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)n/a
20100003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20100004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20110001 39,41639,416Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)n/a
20110003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20110004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20120001 40,20440,204Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)n/a
20120003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20120004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
M - XX07 60,00011,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals n/a
M - XX08 100,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair n/a
M - XX10 622,84195,991 123,606 134,384 128,841 140,019Street Light Project - System Replacement 1
1,476,131264,133 292,991 305,027 300,757 313,223PW Operations Budget Total
Sanitary Sewer Utility
20082200 162,245162,245Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #4)2
20082300 65,00065,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - FM Rehab (Park Ctr Blvd)2
20092200 69,79569,795Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #5)2
20092300 282,50020,000 262,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #17 & FM Rehab 2
20102200 160,000160,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #6)2
20102300 75,50075,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #19 Generator & Controls 2
20112200 166,198166,198Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #7)2
20121800 90,00090,000Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement 2
20122200 166,198166,198Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #8)2
20122300 250,000250,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #2 and FM Rehab 2
1,487,436247,245 332,295 235,500 166,198 506,198Sanitary Sewer Utility Total
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 21
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Special Assessments
20031400 158,750158,750Storm Water Project - Flood Area #32 3
158,750158,750Special Assessments Total
State of Minnesota
20031400 158,75037,500 121,250Storm Water Project - Flood Area #32 3
20081200 325,000325,000Street Project - Hwy 7 Merge Lane Mod @ Blake Road 4
20091500 750,000750,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 2
1,233,75037,500 1,196,250State of Minnesota Total
Stormwater Utility
20072300 100,000100,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
20072400 250,000250,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)2
20081600 150,000150,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
20091400 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
20091500 750,000750,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 2
20101600 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
20111200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
20121800 31,00031,000Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement 2
1,881,000100,000 1,150,000 200,000 200,000 231,000Stormwater Utility Total
Tax Increment - Elmwood
20041700 150,000150,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
20082500 250,000250,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 2
20082600 620,922620,922Street Project - W36th St Streetscape 2
20121300 2,000,0002,000,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 2
20121301 2,039,0512,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 2
20121302 500,000500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 2
5,559,973870,922 150,000 4,539,051Tax Increment - Elmwood Total
Tax Increment - Excelsior Blvd
20040420 300,000300,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)3
300,000300,000Tax Increment - Excelsior Blvd Total
Tax Increment Financing
20071101 4,555,0004,555,000Street Project - Park Place Blvd 2
4,555,0004,555,000Tax Increment Financing Total
U.S. Government
20041700 5,885,0005,885,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
20120100 7,000,0007,000,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.2
12,885,0005,885,000 7,000,000U.S. Government Total
Unfunded
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 22
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
20040440 400,000400,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim) 5
20041700 9,975,0009,975,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
20050500 100,000100,000Street Project - W44th Street 4
20052000 10,000,000200,000 400,000 9,400,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 1
20081200 25,00025,000Street Project - Hwy 7 Merge Lane Mod @ Blake Road 4
20090005 100,000100,000Railroad Proj. - Crossing Protection @ 2 crossings 3
20120100 15,100,00015,100,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.2
20121303 500,000500,000Traffic Signal - CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd.4
M - XX11 757,500150,000 600,000 7,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 2
36,957,500350,000 10,100,000 1,100,000 25,407,500Unfunded Total
Water Utility
20062000 535,00045,000 490,000Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation 1
20071500 835,000835,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #4 1
20081400 895,00075,000 820,000Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation 1
20081500 146,000146,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 2
20091300 180,0005,000 175,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
20101400 90,00090,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
20101500 250,000250,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir WTP#6 2
20111400 364,000364,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
20121400 312,000312,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
20121500 800,00010,000 790,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 1
20121800 90,00090,000Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement 2
TEMP-0001 17,50017,500Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413)5
4,514,5001,031,000 740,000 1,160,000 374,000 1,209,500Water Utility Total
91,875,15411,089,713 29,448,450 4,712,797 2,720,623 43,903,571GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 23
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT
2008 2012thru
Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Department
Category Future
Technology
TRF-Network
120,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 760,000Local Area Network Servers / Electronics
120,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 760,000
Category Sub-Total
TRF-PC Hardware
175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 175,000 1,050,000PC Hardware Replacement
175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 175,000 1,050,000
Category Sub-Total
TRF-PC Software
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000PC Software Replacement
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000
Category Sub-Total
TRF-Telephones
300,000 300,000Citywide Telephone System
300,000 300,000Category Sub-Total
795,000 535,000 535,000 710,000 535,000 3,110,000Department Total:
795,000 535,000 535,000 710,000 535,000 3,110,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 24
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2008 2012thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Equipment Replacement Fund
TRF-211 300,000300,000Citywide Telephone System 3
300,000300,000Equipment Replacement Fund Total
Technology Replacement Fund
TRF-001 1,050,000175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 175,000PC Hardware Replacement 2
TRF-002 1,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000PC Software Replacement 2
TRF-003 760,000120,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000Local Area Network Servers / Electronics 2
2,810,000495,000 535,000 535,000 710,000 535,000Technology Replacement Fund Total
3,110,000795,000 535,000 535,000 710,000 535,000GRAND TOTAL
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8b)
Subject: Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program Page 25
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Resolution Setting Utility Rates
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a Resolution Setting Utility Rates as shown on the attached schedule.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City’s financial consultant, Ehlers and Associates, recommends six months of operating
expense as a target cash balance for each fund based on what they see in comparable cities and
industry best practices. The result of each of these analyses shows that an increase is necessary
in order to fund the day-to-day costs and keep up with the replacement and rehabilitation projects
that are contemplated in the CIP.
BACKGROUND:
The utility budgets will require rate increases consistent with the projections that were presented
with the rate studies that were performed last year by Ehlers. Those increases are:
2007 2008 $ Increase
Water * $1.04 $1.14 $0.10
Sewer* $1.79 $1.88 $0.09
Storm Water** $11.50 $12.25 $0.75
Solid Waste*** $37.50 $40.00 $2.50
* = per 100 cubic feet
** = per standard lot
*** = based on 30 gallon cart
The rates listed will be effective for billings beginning in February, 2008. The reason for the
delay is to allow the rates to take effect for each billing district during their “winter” quarter.
This is the time when we set the base sewer rate for the year because it is typically the lowest
water usage for most residents.
Water Rates Current Rate Proposed Rate
$1.04 per 100 Cubic Feet $1.14 per 100 Cubic Feet
Explanation:
The analysis performed by Ehlers & Associates show that while we are covering the cost of
general operations, cash balances have dwindled because of an aggressive repair and replacement
schedule. These capital improvements need to be covered in the rate structure. The $0.10
increase will allow us to increase cash balances toward the recommended level and cover the debt
service for the 2007 bond issue. The rate increase for 2007 was $0.14.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8c) Page 2
Subject: Resolution Setting Utility Rates
Sewer Rates Current Rate Proposed Rate
$1.79 per 100 Cubic Feet $1.88 per 100 Cubic Feet
Explanation:
This fund has a stronger cash position than the water fund. Staff performed an analysis of these
rates and determined an increase of $0.09 is needed to support the operations and capital projects
in this enterprise fund. The $0.09 increase will allow us to maintain adequate cash balances, cover
the inflationary costs of operations, and pay for the infrastructure replacement expenditures. The
rate increase for 2007 was $0.09.
Storm Water Rates
Current Rate Proposed Rate
$11.50 per Residential Unit $12.25 per Residential Unit
Explanation:
The storm water fund had a long list of projects that were scheduled with the Storm Water Utility
Revenue Bonds of 2001. There are still a significant number of projects to be completed; however,
the bond proceeds have already been spent. The increase of $0.75 will allow us to cover debt
service on the revenue bond issued this year to finance the remaining capital projects. St. Louis
Park remains just over the metropolitan city average for storm sewer rates. This rate increase will
allow the city to keep making progress toward our storm water quality and quantity goals. The
rate increase for 2007 was $2.00.
Solid Waste Rates
Current Rate Proposed Rate
$37.50 per Basic Service $40.00 per Basic Service
per quarter per quarter
Explanation:
A basic service is the cost of a 30 gallon cart. Residents may get larger carts and the basic service
is multiplied by the volume of the cart to calculate the actual rate charged. This $2.50 general
increase is necessary to cover the costs of the existing contract. The current contract with Waste
Management Inc. expires September 30, 2008. Staff and Council have had discussions regarding
a new contract. This fund has a healthy cash balance which is available for cushioning any
increase in fees for 2008 while rates gradually increase to cover the cost of any increase. The rate
increase for 2007 was $2.50.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
These rate increases will provide sufficient funds to pay for anticipated expenses for the next five
year CIP.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8c) Page 3
Subject: Resolution Setting Utility Rates
RESOLUTION NO. 07-___
RESOLUTION SETTING UTILITY RATES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a
report from the Finance Director related to proposed utility rates; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain charges in an amount necessary to
cover the cost of providing service to users; and
WHEREAS, maintaining rates through regular adjustment is a recommended practice
rather than large intermittent increases;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, MN, that:
1. The utility rates as recommended by staff are hereby adopted.
Service Approved Rate
Water $1.14
Sewer $1.88
Storm Water $12.25
Solid Waste $40.00
2. These rates are to be implemented during the winter quarter for residential customers and the
first billing in 2008 for commercial, industrial, apartments, and institutional users.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City staff recommends approval of Resolution regarding the Planned Unit Development Minor
Amendment for the Methodist Hospital Campus at 6500 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to
conditions. The City Council resolution includes all the conditions from the 2003 and 2007 PUD
approvals and adds conditions related to this project. New conditions relating to the helistop are
underlined.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Park Nicollet proposes to move its existing helistop. The existing helicopter landing area is
located at ground level on the west side of the hospital near the loading docks. Pilots landing at
this location have raised safety concerns with the existing helistop.
The helistop would move to the west tower roof. The west tower is four-stories tall and adjacent
to the eight-story hospital tower. An elevated structural steel platform would be erected with a
new walkway connection and entrance into a corridor on the fifth floor of the hospital tower.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 2
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
The Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Aeronautics contacted Park Nicollet
about concerns and incidents reported by pilots at the existing helistop site in 2006. Park
Nicollet undertook a study to explore improvements to the existing site and alternative helistop
locations, with input from the Office of Aeronautics and the pilots. That study considered five
locations.
Park Nicollet’s preferred location is on top of the Blue ramp south of the Heart and Vascular
Center. It is safe for pilots, close to the services needed by most patients arriving via helicopter,
not in the way of future building expansion, and the least expensive. However, neighboring
residents objected to this location based on noise and safety concerns.
Park Nicollet explored several other options that would have involved encroachments into the
wetlands, but Minnehaha Creek Watershed District believed that other options were available
and probably would not meet the criteria to allow an encroachment.
Park Nicolet has decided to pursue the current location in an effort to control the project
schedule, avoid revocation of their helistop license, avoid the negative effects the loss of
helicopter transportation services may have on the Heart and Vascular Center and patients,
protect the wetlands, and address neighbors’ concerns.
The proposed helistop location is an interim solution. Park Nicollet’s General Development Plan
anticipates a vertical expansion of the west tower. Adding two floors to the west tower in the
future will require disruption to helistop service or temporary accommodation elsewhere on
campus during construction.
The hospital averages fewer than two helicopter landings per week.
YEAR NUMBER OF LANDINGS
2002 34
2003 40
2004 49
2005 32
2006 74
2007 60 (estimated)
ZONING ANALYSIS:
A helistop is a permitted accessory use to a hospital provided it is used exclusively in connection
with the hospital and is subordinate to the hospital in area, extent, and purpose. The helicopter
pad must be dust free, screened from view, and takeoff and landings shall not be over residential
areas. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., excluding emergency
operations.
The proposed location will improve traffic safety in the loading dock area and will not change
noise impacts to surrounding properties. MN DOT Office of Aeronautics supports the proposed
location.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 3
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
The existing hospital building fully screens the proposed helistop from the Brooklawns
neighborhood. A combination of existing trees and the distance between Creekside
neighborhood residences reduces visibility of the helistop. It is 560 feet from the Louisiana
Avenue sidewalk and 660 feet to the nearest residential building.
Park Nicollet uses the helistop only for emergency purposes related to the hospital use. A
proposed flight path illustration is attached for review. The flight path is essentially unchanged.
Staff finds the proposed helistop meets all the Zoning Code requirements.
The proposed location conflicts with proposed future vertical expansion of the west tower. Park
Nicollet could incorporate a permanent rooftop helistop location into that vertical building
expansion (i.e. providing elevator service to the roof, avoiding air intake and other mechanical
equipment obstructions, etc.). However, during construction, there could be service interruption
or Park Nicollet might request a temporary helistop location.
Lighting
The proposed lighting will not have offsite impacts. Lighting is directed downward to the pad
itself and activated just before a helicopter landing. Lights identifying hazards to pilots will not
have off-site impacts.
PUD Modifications
Park Nicollet is not requesting any PUD modifications for the helistop relocation.
PROCESS:
Park Nicollet, City and Brooklawns neighborhood representatives have met four times
specifically to discuss the helistop, in addition to periodic updates provided during Cancer Center
meetings. At one meeting, Park Nicollet even arranged for a demonstration of a helicopter
landing.
Most recently, Park Nicollet held a neighborhood meeting on December 10, 2007 to discuss this
specific helistop location. Notices were mailed to neighbors within 500 feet of the campus and
to neighborhood presidents. Only three neighbors attended, but everyone in attendance,
including the designated representative for Brooklawns residents, supported for the proposal.
This proposal may be approved as a Minor Amendment to the PUD. It does not require a public
hearing or mailed notice to adjacent property owners. City Council may approve PUD Minor
Amendments by resolution.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 4
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
General Development Plan
Helistop Flight Path and Exterior Elevation Sketches
Helipad Site Selection Study (excerpt, dated December 11, 2007)
Heliport General Arrangement
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 5
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
Amends and Restates Resolution Nos. 03-174 and 07-083
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NOS.
03-174 AND 07-083 ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 17, 2003, AND AUGUST
6, 2007, RESPECTIVELY AND APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT
TO A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 36-
367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF A HELISTOP FOR
PROPERTY ZONED R-C MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED
AT 6500 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
METHODIST HOSPITAL
WHEREAS, Park Nicollet Health Services has made application to the City Council for
a Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of
the St. Louis Park Ordinance code to allow relocation of the helistop at 6500 Excelsior
Boulevard within a R-C Multi-Family Residential Zoning District having the following legal
description:
Par 1: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20,
Township 117, Range 21, described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter,
thence North to a point 90 feet South of the South line of Calhoun Street, thence West
parallel with the South line of Calhoun Street and the same extended, to a point 111 feet
West of the East line of Section 20, the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence continuing West on said parallel line to the West line of Mount St.,
extended; thence North along said line and the West line of Mound St. 202.5 feet; thence
West parallel with the extension of the South line of Calhoun St., 644.9 feet to the
Southeasterly line of right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Co.;
thence Southwesterly along said right of way line to the West line of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section; thence South to the Southwest Corner of
the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along the South line of said
Northeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter of said Section to the point of intersection with a
line running parallel with the East line of said Section from the actual point of beginning;
thence North along said parallel line to the actual point of beginning.
Par 2: The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter that part of the North 1/2 of the
Southeast Quarter which lies North of the center line of Excelsior Boulevard, Section 20,
Township 117, Range 21 excepting there from that part which lies East of a line
described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the East line of said Section 90 feet South of the South line of
Calhoun Street; thence West parallel with the South line of Calhoun Street and the same
extended to a point 111 feet West of the East line of said Section the actual point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence South parallel with the East line of Section
20 to the center line of Excelsior Boulevard and except that part lying Southerly and
Westerly of a line drawn from a point in the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter distant 425 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof to a point in the
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 6
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 480 feet West of the
Southeast corner thereof; thence along said line projected Southeasterly to the
intersection with a line drawn 411 feet West of, measured at a right angle to and parallel
with the East line of the North 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter; thence South along last said
parallel line to the center line of Excelsior Boulevard and there terminating.
Subject to a power line easement over a strip of land 35 feet in width as set forth in the
record, Book 1045 of Deeds, page 41, the center line of which strip was described as
follows, to wit: Beginning at a point 17 1/2 feet West of the Southeast corner of said
Section 20, thence North parallel to East section line and equidistant therefrom to the
South line of Excelsior Boulevard sometimes called Hopkins Road; thence Northwesterly
to a point on the North line of said Excelsior Boulevard 128 1/2 feet West of said East
section line; thence North and parallel to said section line to a point 128 1/2 feet West of
said Section line and 14 feet South of the South line of said Lot 14, Block 78, in the
Village of St. Louis Park all as shown by plat on file herein of which a certified copy
shall be filed with the Registrar of Titles.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the information related to Planning Case Nos.
07-25-PUD, 03-44-PUD, and 03-61-VAR and the effect of the proposed building addition and
parking structure on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding
area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) with variances from sign
requirements was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 03-174 of
the St. Louis Park City Council dated November 17, 2003 which contained conditions applicable
to said property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the information related to Planning Case No.
07-25-PUD and the effect of the proposed building addition and parking structure on the health,
safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on
the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council approved a Major Amendment to a Final
PUD pursuant to Resolution No. 07-083 dated August 6, 2007 to allow a 77,000 square foot
Cancer Center building addition and five-level parking structure which contained conditions
applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of
Resolution Nos. 03-174 and 07-083, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all
conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 7
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 07-54-PUD are hereby entered into and
made part of the public record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution Nos. 03-174 and 07-083 are
hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final Planned
Unit Development to the subject property for relocating the helistop to the rooftop of the west
tower at the location described above based on the following conditions:
A. Variance from sign ordinance requirements to allow additional sign area, permit
the exemption of on-site private directional signs in excess of 4 square feet, a 1-
foot sign setback, and two signs per street frontage is approved based on the
following findings:
1. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are
peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and no not
apply generally to other land or structure in the district in which such land
is located.
2. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right.
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which
property is situated, or be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. The granting of the variance is necessary to correct inequities resulting
from an extreme physical hardship such as topography.
5. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to the adjacent property, unreasonable increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
B. The sign variances are granted based upon the findings set forth above and subject
to the following conditions:
1. Illuminated signage, excluding emergency signs, shall be prohibited on the on the
east elevation of the ramp and of the hospital.
2. The variance excludes a 208 square foot wall sign on the east elevation and
reduces a 157.5 wall sign on the east elevation to a maximum of 60 square feet.
3. The variances approve a maximum of 1500 square feet of total sign area, two wall
signs 376 square foot each, and a maximum of 304.5 square feet for monument
identification signs.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 8
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
C. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the following
Official Exhibits, which shall be amended prior to signing to meet the conditions of Final
PUD approval:
Exhibit A – General Development Plan
Exhibit B – Existing Site Conditions (C1.1 & C1.2)
Exhibit C – Demolition Plan (C1.3)
Exhibit D – Phase I Site Plan (C2.1)
Exhibit E – Site Plan (C2.2 & C2.3)
Exhibit F – Grading & Erosion Control Plan (C3.1 & C3.2)
Exhibit G – Utility Plan (C4.1)
Exhibit H – Site Lighting Plan (E2.1)
Exhibit I – Tree Removal Plan (L1.1)
Exhibit J – Landscape Plan (L2.1 & L2.2)
Exhibit K – Exterior Elevations (A301, A302, A301P, A302 & Colored Renderings)
Exhibit L – Sign Plan
Exhibit M – Cross Sections (XXX)
D. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all
conditions of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and
Hennepin County requirements.
E. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements:
1. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City.
2. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained (i.e. Hennepin
County).
3. Sign assent form and Final PUD official exhibits, as revised to eliminate valet
parking stalls and meet all condition of Final PUD approval.
4. Obtain the required demolition permit, erosion control permits, utility permits and
other permits required by the City, which may impose additional conditions.
5. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City,
which covers at a minimum, sidewalk construction and maintenance, repair and
cleaning of public streets, construction conditions, off site infrastructure
improvements and cost share formulas, off-site parking, and criteria for
administrative amendments to the PUD. The Mayor and City Manager are
authorized to execute this agreement.
6. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the
amount of 125% of the costs of sidewalk installation and repair/cleaning of public
streets, and tree replacement.
7. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents.
8. Tree protection fencing must be installed and maintained throughout construction.
9. A parking agreement must be recorded prohibiting the applicant assigning their
parking lease to another entity.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 9
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
F. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
developer shall comply with the following:
1. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during
construction.
2. Building materials samples/colors shall be submitted to and approved by City.
3. An irrigation plan meeting the ordinance regulations shall be submitted to and
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
4. Revised ramp elevations showing a 5-foot architectural (brick) wall on the east
side or an equivalent alternative, and additional brick on the west side in keeping
with other elevations and elimination of cable per Chief Building Official shall be
submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
G. A PUD ordinance modification to allow the existing hospital building to be 8 stories
rather than the required 6 as shown on the signed official exhibits is contingent upon final
PUD approval.
H. A PUD ordinance modification to allow the 6 story/74 foot (elevation 974 feet) tall Heart
& Vascular Center to include 18 foot tall penthouse for mechanical equipment (total
building and penthouse height of 92 feet, elevation of 992 feet 1 ½ inches) is contingent
upon final PUD approval and approval of exterior materials.
I. Methodist’s campus design should generally adhere to the principles set forth in the
November 10, 2003 design plan document.
J. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
1. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10
p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
2. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
3. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
4. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
5. The developer or owner shall provide temporary sidewalks as needed during
construction to meet Public Works Department and Metro Transit’s requirements
and the Excelsior Blvd access and north-south roadway shall remain open as
needed to provide adequate transit service.
6. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
K. The usable floor area of the Heart & Vascular Center is limited to no more than 6 stories
(192,950sq. ft) as shown on the official exhibits. The 13,500 sq. ft. penthouse may only
be used to store mechanical equipment.
L. The parking ramp may have no more than 500 parking spaces and four levels, two above
ground level with a maximum elevation of 925 feet 4 inches (or 23.42 feet) including a
42 inch safety rail. A 3 foot high parapet screen wall is permitted on top of safety rail
and is required along the north, south and east elevation of the ramp.
M. The applicant shall require delivery vehicles to use Louisiana Avenue entrance as the
“official” delivery truck/service entrance.
N. Hennepin County shall approve the final design of the Excelsior Blvd entrance and all
necessary permits must be obtained. Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) devices shall
be installed on the signal upgrades if feasible.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 10
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
O. Within six four years from Final PUD approval the lights in the north parking lot will be
updated to eliminate direct illumination and glare onto residential properties per City
Ordinance.
P All nonconformities, including parking lot design and bufferyards, will be brought into
compliance with any future expansion of occupiable floor area or any future
reconstruction of the Orange parking lot or a new Orange ramp to the extent reasonable
and possible as determined by the City via the PUD amendment process.
Q. Prior to the installation of any signs, including temporary signs or new sign faces, the
applicant shall obtain sign permits. Illuminated signage, excluding emergency signs,
shall be prohibited on the ramp and above the second level of the east elevation of the
hospital.
R. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
S. Phase II is approved in general concept only and is required to obtain future Preliminary
and Final PUD approval.
T. The development agreement shall include provisions relating to the cost share formula
between the applicant and City regarding various off-site infrastructure improvements.
The cost share allocation shall be pursuant to a memo from SRF Consulting dated
7/20/03 and revised on 10/02/03 on file at City Hall. The development agreement shall
contain a provision allowing for the applicant’s share of the off-site improvements to be
specially assessed
U. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on August 4, 2007 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions related to the Cancer Center
addition and five-level parking ramp:
1. The approval is contingent upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency
approval of the Letter of Map Revision amending (lowering) the base flood
elevation to 889.9.
2. The approval is contingent upon the City of St. Louis Park amending its zoning
ordinance to adopt the base flood elevation of 889.9 approved by FEMA.
3. The applicant shall submit a proof-of-parking plan for the Methodist Hospital
Campus providing the remaining 145 bicycle parking stalls required by City
Code.
4. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the
following Official Exhibits:
a. General Development Plan (Sheet 106)
b. Existing Site Conditions (Sheet 200.C10)
c. Demolition Plan (Sheet 200.C11)
d. Site Plan (Sheet 200.C21)
e. Grading & Erosion Control Plan (Sheet 200.C31)
f. Utility Plan (Sheet 200.C41)
g. Landscape Plan (Sheets 200.L21, 200.L21A, 200.L21B, 200.L21C,
200.L71)
h. Site Lighting Plan (Sheets E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, E.5, E.6, E.7, E.8, E.9)
i. Exterior Elevations (Sheets 510, 511, 512, 513)
5. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall meet the following requirements:
a. Applicant and owner must sign Assent Form and Official Exhibits.
b. The applicant shall provide a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District permit to the City of St. Louis Park.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 11
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
c. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained (i.e.
Hennepin County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, etc.).
d. Obtain the required Erosion Control, Right-of-way, Utility and other
permits required by the City, which may impose additional conditions.
e. A development agreement shall be executed between the applicant and the
City of St. Louis Park, which addresses, at a minimum, traffic signal
installation at Oxford Street and Louisiana Avenue, repair and cleaning of
public streets, criteria for administrative amendments to the PUD.
f. A preconstruction conference shall be held with the appropriate
development, construction, city and other agency representatives.
g. A staging plan for demolition and construction shall be filed with the City.
h. The applicant shall reimburse the City for City attorney fees in preparing
and reviewing the PUD development agreement.
i. The applicant shall submit a financial guarantee in the form of cash
escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public
infrastructure, exterior lighting, surface parking and driveways, and
landscaping improvements.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall meet the
following conditions:
a. Submit building materials and samples to the City of St. Louis Park for
review and approval.
b. A Development Contract shall be signed and financial guarantees shall be
in place.
c. Any future modifications to sign plan may be approved administratively
with a sign permit, provided the total sign area is not increased (excluding
directional signage) and no new variances are required.
7. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be
no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
weekdays, and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all
times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighboring properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
8. The project shall be constructed in accordance with the official exhibits.
9. All nonconformities, including parking lot design, lighting, landscaping and
screening will be brought into compliance prior to issuance of the Final
Certificate of Occupancy for the Cancer Center building addition.
10. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Page 12
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist Hospital Campus
V. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on December 17, 2007 to incorporate
all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions for relocating the
helistop to the rooftop of the west tower:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the
following Official Exhibits:
a. General Development Plan
b. Helistop General Arrangement (Sheet H-1)
c. Helistop Electrical Arrangement (Sheet E-1)
d. Exterior Elevation
2. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant and owner must sign the
Assent Form and Official Exhibits.
3. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be
no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
weekdays, and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighboring properties.
c. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d)
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development - Methodist Hospital Campus Page 13
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d)
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development - Methodist Hospital Campus Page 14
ε
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d)
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development - Methodist Hospital Campus Page 15
ε
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d)
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development - Methodist Hospital Campus Page 16
ε
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d)
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development - Methodist Hospital Campus Page 17
ε
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d)
Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development - Methodist Hospital Campus Page 18
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8d) Subject: Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development - Methodist Hospital CampusPage 19
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Contract for Private Redevelopment - Duke Realty Limited Partnership.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the
EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to authorize execution of a Contract for Private Redevelopment
between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership to facilitate The West End project?
Over the past year, the EDA/City Council has worked with Duke Realty on redevelopment plans
for the property Duke owns in the vicinity of Park Place Boulevard, Utica Avenue, Wayzata
Blvd and Gamble Drive. The EDA/City Council reviewed Duke’s TIF application (3/26/07),
approved and amended a Preliminary Development Agreement (5/21/07 and 9/4/07); and,
discussed potential redevelopment contract terms and levels of city assistance (7/24/07, 9/24/07,
and 11/26,07). On November 19th the EDA and City Council approved the creation of The West
End TIF District. It is now time to take the final step in the TIF process which is to enter into a
Redevelopment Contract with Duke that commits the city to a specific level of financial
assistance for The West End project.
BACKGROUND:
Existing Conditions
Duke Realty Corporation owns approximately 49 acres at the southwest corner of I-394 and
Highway 100. Given the property’s highway exposure and close proximity to Downtown
Minneapolis, the Duke site is both highly visible and highly desirable within the Twin Cities real
estate market. It also serves as a prominent gateway into the City of St. Louis Park. Duke plans
to redevelop 38.5 acres of this site area (32.5 acres in St. Louis Park and 6 acres in Golden
Valley). The proposed redevelopment area (as shown in the attached aerial photo) consists
largely of two parts.
The eastern portion is approximately 16 acres; ten acres of which are in the City of St. Louis
Park and six acres are in the City of Golden Valley. This area previously included six, 40+ year
old office buildings totaling 178,000 square feet. Duke removed the three office buildings in
Golden Valley a couple years ago and the other three in St. Louis Park are currently being
demolished.
The western portion of Duke’s redevelopment area is approximately 18 acres. This area is
occupied by two, vacant buildings. These are the former Novartis Warehouse on Park Place
Boulevard and the former Northwest Tennis Club Building on the corner of Park Place and
Gamble. These buildings are currently being demolished as well.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 2
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Directly in the middle of these two redevelopment areas lies the 1600 and MoneyGram Office
Towers, as well as two restaurant pads occupied by Olive Garden and Chili’s. Duke will retain
these restaurants and Class “A” office buildings and construct a regional commercial
development around them.
In addition, the 6.1 acre parcel at 5353 Wayzata Blvd (Associated Bank parcel) is included
within the recently established West End TIF District. While this site is not owned by Duke, a
new hotel is proposed on the east side of the parcel that will be integrated into The West End
project. This 124-unit extended stay facility will be developed by Torgerson Properties. Public
improvements on this parcel will also be necessary to accommodate The West End project.
Proposed Project Plans
As shown on the attached Master Site Plan, Duke plans to redevelop the eastern side of its
property as a Class “A” office park. It will include approximately 1,100,000 square feet of office
space distributed between three or four office buildings as market conditions warrant. The office
buildings will be constructed in St. Louis Park and connected to a seven level parking structure
constructed in Golden Valley. The first speculative office building, approximately 275,000 SF,
will likely be completed in 2010.
On the western side of the site (running parallel to Park Place Boulevard), Duke and joint
venture partner Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate will construct a “lifestyle” shopping center of
approximately 350,000 square feet. This regional destination retail area will be called The West
End. It will feature (a) retail tenants consistent with an urban “lifestyle” center; (b) casual and
sit-down restaurants; (c) multi-screen cinema; and (d) approximately 28,000 square feet of
second story office space. Also included in the center will be indoor and outdoor public
gathering places, a community room and a police sub-station (“cop-shop”). The Master Site Plan
for this area depicts a combination of single story and two story uses. The Redevelopers will
provide single-level, underground parking beneath the largest retail block and a five-level
parking structure opposite the existing MoneyGram and 1600 Tower parking structures. A
skyway will connect these existing parking structures with the new five-level structure so as to
provide shared parking within the redevelopment. The Redevelopers plan to construct the
retail/restaurant/entertainment part of the master plan in a single phase, commencing in 2008
with completion expected in the fall of 2009.
In addition, a hotel will be will be incorporated with the Duke redevelopment along the north
side of the new West 16th Street extension. The hotel will have approximately 140 rooms and
underground parking. It is likely to be completed by the end of 2009. Duke will not actually
construct the building but will sell the pad to another entity that will be required to build the
facility.
Over the past year, Duke and the City have worked closely to develop a master plan for the
subject redevelopment area that features:
¾ An attractive, upscale, class “A” image
¾ Urban development density
¾ Mixed use
¾ Pedestrian and transit friendly
¾ Functional public spaces and amenities
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 3
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Upon completion, The West End will include 1.5 million square feet and is expected to be unlike
any other commercial development in the Twin Cities.
Property Value
Currently, the six (6) properties within the proposed redevelopment area in St. Louis Park have a
total market value of approximately $43 million. The projected market value of this area upon
redevelopment is estimated at approximately $244 million. The property taxes payable in 2007
on these same properties was approximately $1.1 million. Upon redevelopment, the proposed
project would generate over $7.8 million in property taxes.
Job Creation
Duke estimates that the proposed project will add approximately 5,400 total jobs to St. Louis Park
with a total aggregate salary of $240,000,000.
Request for Financial Assistance
Any development of the Duke site is likely to entail significant extraordinary development costs.
The site has poor soils, a high water table, structurally substandard buildings that need
demolition and utilities that need to be relocated to maximize the development potential of the
site. To create a successful, urban, pedestrian-friendly, retail environment also requires more
intense and compact development. Creating more compact development drives up parking and
other site costs. In addition, any sizeable development on this site will require transportation
improvements on and off-site that are difficult to fund unless public financial assistance is
provided to offset these costs.
For nearly a year staff has been working with Duke representatives to arrive at a level of
financial assistance that is both appropriate and consistent with City policies and past practices.
In its initial TIF Application Duke Realty requested $35 million in public financial assistance to
cover a substantive portion of the costs associated with building demolition, soil correction,
utility relocations, on and off-site roadway improvements, and structured parking. Since the
March 26, 2007 Study Session, Duke made substantial changes to the retail portion of its project
plan to improve the market viability and community benefits of the proposed project. In
addition, it more accurately estimated the construction costs of the overall project and reviewed
its target yields. After numerous meetings with the Redeveloper, a revised assistance package
was negotiated that calls for the city to provide the Redeveloper with $22 million in assistance
and city construction of up to $5 million worth in public improvements.
Redeveloper/EDA Financing
The latest assistance package, as reflected in the proposed Redevelopment Contract, is
financially feasible and consistent with EDA targets. In order to offset the extraordinary costs
associated with redeveloping the Duke Property, it is proposed that the EDA/City provide the
Redeveloper with $21.1 million in tax increment (TIF) Notes and a reduction of $900,000 in
Parkland Dedication fees (approximately half the required amount). Reducing the Parkland
Dedication fee is supportable given the quantity and quality of public space, gathering places,
and other public amenities the Redeveloper will be incorporating into the project. These funds
would be used to reimburse Duke for a portion of the Redeveloper Public Improvements and
Other Public Redevelopment Costs incurred while constructing the project. These are expected to
include the following:
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 4
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Project
Estimated
Cost
Building Demolition/
Site Clearance/ $ 870,000
Environmental 70,000
Soil Correction 3,280,000
Earth Retention 1,070,000
Sanitary Sewer Relocation 500,000
Stormwater Detention 1,650,000
West 16th St. Street 1,800,000
West End Blvd Street 2,450,000
Alley/ Parking Access 1,650,000
Utica Ave. Street 1,800,000
Other Road Improvements 200,000
Structured Parking 5,760,000
Total $21,100,000
In addition the city would issue two general obligation “Senior TIF Bonds” of up to $5 million to
finance all public improvements to Park Place Boulevard (with the exception of the cost of the
matching grade changes on Park Place Blvd which the Redeveloper agrees to reimburse the city
$250,000). These Senior TIF Bonds would be reimbursed with the first tax increment dollars
received from the West End TIF District and 2% of the EDA’s Admin Fee. As projected these
Bonds would likely be retired in 15 years. Collectively, the Redeveloper assistance and the Park
Place Public Improvements will be funded from tax increment generated over a 20-year period
and assumes a modest inflation factor of 1%. Altogether, the city’s total proposed participation
in the project is not to exceed $27 million.
As noted above, the EDA will reimburse Duke for Redeveloper Public Improvements and Other
Public Redevelopment Costs it incurs through issuance of one or more pay-as-you-go TIF notes
(referred to as “Initial Notes”) which is the desired financing method under the city's TIF Policy.
The EDA will issue the Initial Notes in series, with one Initial Note primarily secured by Available
Tax Increment generated by Phase II (the retail, hotel, and first office building) of the project and
generated by all other property within the TIF District; and a second Initial Note primarily secured
by Available Tax Increment from Phase III (the remaining office buildings). All Initial Notes are
subordinate to any outstanding Senior TIF Bonds. Consistent with the city’s TIF Policy, Fiscal
Disparities would be taken from inside the district. A 5% administrative fee would also be
charged to the district which is the EDA’s typical rate (although for the first fifteen years of the
district 2% of the fee will be applied toward the city’s TIF Bonds).
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 5
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
The Initial Notes will be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $21,100,000, and
will be issued upon satisfactory evidence that qualified costs were incurred for the relevant Phase.
Each Initial Note will bear interest at a rate of 6.75%, and will have a term of 20 years (starting no
earlier than 2011).
Proforma Analysis
Staff requested Ehlers & Associates to review the Duke’s latest proforma reflecting the proposed
amount of assistance. Ehlers analyzed the proforma in comparison with general industry
standards for land price, construction costs, lease rates, return on equity/profit, various fees, etc.
Overall, Ehlers believes Duke’s cost and revenue assumptions are reasonable and appropriate. In
addition all the projected market values per square foot in the project have been reviewed by the
City’s Assessor who concurs they are within appropriate market ranges.
In its review Ehlers confirmed that the proposed project cannot fully support the costs of the
necessary public improvements noted above. As it stands Duke’s current proforma and $22
million in assistance would allow it to achieve a stabilized yield on the retail portion of the
project of approximately 7% which is below typical yield rates for comparable projects. On the
office portion, Duke would be achieving a stabilized yield of less than 9% which is also below
the market average.
Ehlers concluded The West End project is not economically feasible without the use of public
financing and that the negotiated level of financial assistance was reasonable given the
complexity, quality, projected total value, and other residual economic benefits derived from the
proposed West End redevelopment. The City’s participation would leverage approximately $375
million in new investment. As a percentage of total project cost the requested amount of
financial assistance is less than 7.5%. This is moderate given the level of assistance required by
other projects the city has assisted.
TIF Lookback
As with other projects involving TIF, the proposed Redevelopment Contract with Duke contains
a “Lookback” provision. The EDA will perform a “lookback” calculation on the earliest of (i) the
date a Phase or facility reaches 95% lease-up; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of
the subject Phase or facility; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of
Completion for the Phase or subject facility. The Redeveloper must submit evidence of its Yield
on Total Project Costs, which is Net Operating Income in the year of the calculation divided by
Total Project Costs to date. If that result is more than 15%, the EDA and Redeveloper share
equally in the excess income. The EDA’s share would be used to pay off outstanding Initial
Notes or reduce the amount of Refunding Notes.
TIF District Approvals
The EDA/Council reviewed the preliminary TIF application from Duke Realty at the March 26,
2007 study session. A Preliminary Development Agreement was approved on May 21, 2007 and
amended on September 4, 2007. Potential business terms for a full redevelopment contract were
discussed at the July 23rd, September 24th, and November 26th Study Sessions where they were
favorably received. At the October 1st City Council meeting, a public hearing date was
scheduled for November 19th for the proposed Redevelopment TIF District.
The Planning Commission reviewed The West End Tax Increment Financing Plan on November 7th
and found that it was in conformance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 6
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
On November 19th the EDA and City Council approved the creation of The West End TIF District (a
redevelopment district).
Joint Powers Agreement – Golden Valley
Staff continues to work with Golden Valley on finalizing what appears to be one remaining issue
related to property tax apportionment.
REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT:
Duke Realty’s proposed project plans and request for financial assistance have been presented
and/or discussed at over six study sessions this past year. A list of specific business points was
discussed at several of the study sessions and was favorably received. These terms served as the
basis for the proposed Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty. The proposed Contract was
prepared by the EDA’s legal counsel, Kennedy & Graven. A Summary of the Contract is
attached. The authorizing resolution allows for modifications to the Contract that do not alter the
substance of the transaction without bringing the Contract back to the EDA.
Business Subsidy
The assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the Agreement does not constitute a “business
subsidy” under the Business Subsidy Act (Section 116J.993 to 116J.995) because this is a
redevelopment where “the recipient’s investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is
70% or more of the assessor’s current year’s estimated market value”.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
It is proposed that $26.1 million in total tax increment ($5 million to the City and $21.1 million
to the Redeveloper) and a reduction of $900,000 in Parkland Dedication fees be authorized to
offset the City Public Improvements, Redeveloper Public Improvements and Other Public
Redevelopment Costs needed to facilitate The West End commercial project. Please note that the
City will still receive approximately $900,000 in park dedication fees.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community and
the focus area of creating community gathering places.
Attachments: Resolution
Contract Summary
Redevelopment Area Aerial Photo
Master Site Plan
West End Public Improvements Plan
Contract for Private Redevelopment
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 7
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN AND AMONG THE CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK, THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park
("City") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) is currently
administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established The West End Tax
Increment Financing District (“TIF District”).
1.02. The City and the Authority have entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement
with Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (“Developer”) dated as of
May 21, 2007 as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated September 4, 2007 (Preliminary
Agreement”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the proposed Duke TIF
District.
1.03. As contemplated in the Preliminary Agreement, the parties have negotiated the terms
of a definitive Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”), describing their respective
responsibilities in construction and financing related to redevelopment of property within the TIF
District.
1.04. The Council has reviewed the Contract and finds that the approval and execution
thereof and performance of the City's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and
its residents.
Section 2. City Approval; Other Proceedings.
2.01. The Contract as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to
modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor
and City Manager provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive
evidence of approval.
2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City
the Contract, and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the City, and to carry
out, on behalf of the City its obligations thereunder.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 8
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out
the intent of this resolution.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007.
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 9
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
SUMMARY OF THE
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
AMONG CITY, EDA AND DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
The following is summary of the Contract for Private Redevelopment (“Contract”) among the
City of St. Louis Park (“City”), the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”)
and Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (“Redeveloper”). The
Contract, if approved by the City and EDA, will supersede the Preliminary Development
Agreement between the above parties dated May 21, 2007 and amended September 4, 2007.
I. STATUS OF LAND AND PLATTING.
A. Defined Areas.
“Redevelopment Property,” which consists of five parcels owned by Redeveloper within
the City, except for a portion that Redeveloper has now transferred to AD West End, LLC
(“Ad West End”) for development of the retail facilities described below.
“Golden Valley Property,” which consists of parcels owned by Redeveloper and located in
the City of Golden Valley.
“TIF District,” which consists of the Redevelopment Property, plus the parcel at the
intersection of Park Place Boulevard and I-394, which is not owned by Redeveloper and not
the subject of this Contract (though portions of that parcel are expected to be redeveloped
for hotel use in conjunction with the redevelopment under the Contract.
B. Platting.
The Redeveloper will prepare and obtain City approval of a planned unit development
(“PUD”) and Plat of the Redevelopment Property and the Golden Valley Property at
Redeveloper’s cost and subject to all City ordinances and procedures. The Plat and PUD
must be consistent with the Master Site Plan. In the Plat, the Redeveloper must dedicate to
the City all public rights of way and utility easements.
C. Joint Powers Agreement.
The parties currently expect that the City and the City of Golden Valley will enter into a
Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) regarding the Golden Valley Property. If a JPA is not
executed by April 1, 2008, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith regarding
reconfiguration of the proposed redevelopment, provided that the revised office
improvements have substantially same total square footage, and any requests for additional
tax increment assistance are justified by financial need and do not exceed twenty years of
increment.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 10
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
II. CONSTRUCTION OF MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS
A. Phases Defined.
The Minimum Improvements consist of the following development constructed in phases,
located as shown on the Master Site Plan:
Phase I: Demolition of all buildings on the Redevelopment Property (except the two
existing restaurants on the Parcel at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard) and on the Golden Valley
Property; public utility relocation and construction work under Utica Avenue and 16th
Street; soil correction and earthwork for the entire Redevelopment Property; and the
construction of 16th Street between Park Place Blvd to Utica Avenue and Utica Avenue
north to Wayzata Blvd.
Phase IIA: Approximately 350,000 square feet of retail, entertainment, and restaurants;
approximately 28,000 square feet of second story office space, certain public space and all
related parking structures; and the construction of West End Boulevard as a private road;
Phase IIB: Approximately 277,555 square feet of class A office space and space for
related uses in one office building to be located on the eastern portion of the Redevelopment
Property along with site improvements and structured or surface parking as required.
Parking facilities for Phase IIB are currently expected to be constructed on the Golden
Valley Property,
Phase IIC: a 130 to 140-room hotel.
Phase III: Approximately 833,000 square feet of class A office space in addition to
Phase IIB, to be located in two or three office buildings to be located adjacent to, integrated
with and to share parking with Phase IIB. Parking facilities for Phase III are currently
expected to be constructed on the Golden Valley Property. Phase III may be further staged
in additional phases to accommodate the need to meet changing market conditions and
financing availability.
B. Additional Covenants.
• The core and shell of all office facilities will be LEED-certified (or at least meet
current LEED requirements); Redeveloper will use commercially reasonable efforts
to incorporate LEED design elements in retail core and shell.
• Redeveloper will provide outdoor gathering spaces and at least one 5,000-square
foot indoor gathering space, that are privately owned by available for public use.
City and Redeveloper will enter into use agreements regarding these spaces to
describe their respective responsibilities regarding procedures for notice and
comment about activities, insurance and the like.
• The Redeveloper will provide pedestrian connections throughout the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 11
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
• The Redeveloper will provide a public pedestrian/bicycle connection through the
structured parking in Phase IIB or III that joins Wayzata Boulevard and Utica
Avenue.
• The Redeveloper will accommodate public transit throughout the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property.
• The Redeveloper will accommodate public art throughout the Redevelopment
Property.
• The Redeveloper will provide easements or access for wireless communication,
conduit and cabling throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley
Property. Redeveloper and City will at their own cost install respective portions of
the conduit as part of Redeveloper Public Improvements and City Public
Improvements.
• Redeveloper will provide to City, without charge, approximately 250 square feet of
finished space in Phase IIA for use as a neighborhood City police station. Upon
completion, the Redeveloper must operate and maintain the facility at Redeveloper’s
cost, including cleaning, heat and electricity
• The Redeveloper will construct a public restroom for men and for women, or two
uni-sex bathrooms, located within Phase IIA at a site and with amenities mutually
agreed by the Redeveloper and the City. The area of the public restroom will be part
of the 5,000 square feet of public space identified above. Upon completion, the
Redeveloper must operate and maintain the public restroom at Redeveloper’s cost.
• The City will cooperate with Redeveloper in efforts to provide for outdoor seating at
restaurants in any Phase.
C. Construction Plans and Schedule.
The Contract includes a current Master Site Plan, which will be refined as part of the review
and approval process for the plat and PUD. Before commencement of each Phase,
Redeveloper must submit construction plans for review by the Authority for conformity
with the Redevelopment Plan, the PUD, the Master Site Plan, and the Contract.
The Phases must be constructed in accordance with the following schedule:
Phase
Required
Commencement
Date
Required
Completion
Date
Phase I December 18,
2007
August 1, 2009
Phase IIA
July 1, 2008
June 1, 2010
Phases IIB
& IIC
March 1, 2009
December 31, 2011
Phase III June 1, 2011 June 1, 2016
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 12
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Failure to commence or complete a Phase in accordance with this schedule will be an event
of default, except as follows: (a) as a remedy for default in a Phase, the EDA may withhold
tax increment only related to the defaulted Phase (i.e., no cross-defaults); and (b) the
Redeveloper agrees to use its commercially reasonable efforts to commence and complete
construction Phase III by the specified Commencement and Completion Dates, but failure to
commence or complete construction of Phase III by those dates is not an Event of Default
under the Contract (provided that Redeveloper is required to submit reports explaining
reason for failure to comply).
D. Public Improvements.
The responsibility for Public Improvements is divided between the City and Redeveloper as
follows:
City Public Improvements. The City will undertake the following, at the City’s cost:
Park Place Boulevard Improvements. City will prepare all plans for, and reconstruct, Park
Place Boulevard between Gamble Drive and I-394 (except as otherwise described below
regarding streetscaping).
Streetscape Improvements.
• Park Place Boulevard and Gamble
The City will prepare concept plans and construction plans for all streetscape
improvements for
o Park Place Boulevard between Gamble Drive and I-394 and Park Place
Boulevard north of the Redevelopment Property.
o Gamble Drive.
Of those improvements, the City will construct the west side and median of Park Place
Boulevard and the south side and median of Gamble Drive; the Redeveloper will construct
the balance of such streetscape improvements as described below.
• West 16th Street
The City will prepare concept plans for all streetscape improvements within the right of way
of West 16th Street from Park Place Boulevard to Utica Avenue; Redeveloper will prepare
construction plans and construct such streetscape improvements as described below.
The City is responsible for the cost of all City Public Improvements (which are expected to be
financed primarily through issuance of two TIF Bonds, described below) with the exception of
the cost of the Park Place Blvd matching grade changes for which the Redeveloper agrees to
reimburse the city $250,000.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 13
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Redeveloper Public Improvements. The Redeveloper will undertake the following Public
Improvements, at Redeveloper’s cost:
Streets and Utilities. The Redeveloper will prepare plans and specifications for, and
construct, all roads, sewer, water, and traffic improvements located within the following
rights of way:
o West 16th Street from Park Place Boulevard to Utica Avenue South as generally
shown on the Public Improvements Plan.
o Utica Avenue starting from its current alignment north to Wayzata Boulevard as
generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan.
o Improvements to the T-intersection along Wayzata Boulevard in Golden Valley
(subject to all terms, and conditioned on execution, of the JPA).
o Traffic-calming improvements along Wayzata Boulevard in Golden Valley
(subject to all terms, and conditioned on execution, of the JPA).
Streetscape Improvements.
• Park Place Boulevard and Gamble.
Using concept and construction plans provided by the City as described above, the
Redeveloper shall construct all streetscape improvements located within the following rights
of way:
o The east side of Park Place Boulevard between Gamble Drive and the north end
of the Redevelopment Property.
o The north side of Gamble Drive.
• West 16th Street
Using concept plans provided by the City as described above, the Redeveloper shall prepare
construction plans and specifications for, and construct, all streetscape improvements in the
right of way of West 16th Street from Park Place Boulevard to Utica Avenue South.
• Utica Avenue
Redeveloper shall prepare concept plans, construction plans and specifications for, and
construct, all streetscape improvements located in the right of way of Utica Avenue (both
sides) from its current alignment north to Wayzata Boulevard.
Redeveloper initially pays all costs of Redeveloper Public Improvements, except that all such
costs are eligible for reimbursement through issuance of TIF notes.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 14
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
E. Maintenance Requirements.
The responsibility for ongoing maintenance of Public Improvements is divided between the City
and Redeveloper as follows:
The City will have primary responsibility for:
• customary maintenance, repair and replacement up to the curb line of all public
streets within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Property (and within the Golden
Valley Property, subject to terms of the JPA), except as otherwise provided below
regarding medians.
• customary maintenance, repair and replacement of standard street lighting located
in the public right of way within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Property (and
within the Golden Valley Property, subject to terms of the JPA).
• customary maintenance, repair and replacement of streetscape between the curb
line and the boundary of the right-of-way along the west side and median of Park
Place Boulevard between Gamble Drwive and Interstate 394 and along the south
side and median of Gamble Drive.
The Redeveloper will have primary responsibility for:
• customary maintenance, repair and replacement of all private streets and alleys
within the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property.
• customary repair and replacement (but not maintenance such as street cleaning
and plowing) of aesthetic enhancements (such as decorative pavers) within any
public right of way within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Property and
Golden Valley Property (subject to any terms of the JPA).
• customary maintence, repair and replacement for all streetscape between the curb
line and the boundary of the right-of-way along all public streets within and
adjacent to the Redevelopment Property and the Golden Valley Property (subject
to any terms of the JPA), except as otherwise provided regarding specified
portions of streetscape described above.
• customary maintenance, repair and replacement of medians within West 16th
Street and Utica Avenue.
III. FINANCING.
A. Redeveloper Financing.
Before commencement of any Phase, Redeveloper shall submit to the EDA evidence of one or more
commitments for financing which is sufficient for the construction of that Phase of the Minimum
Improvements. Approval of the Redeveloper’s financing will not be unreasonably withheld.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 15
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
B. City Public Improvements.
The City and EDA will finance the cost of the City Public Improvements through issuance by the
City of general obligation bonds. Bonds that produce net proceeds (after deducting costs of
issuance, discount and capitalized interest) in the amount of $4,500,000 will be primarily secured by
95% of the increments from all property in the TIF District. Such bonds are referred to as “Senior
TIF Bonds.” The City may also issue a bond of any size it determines (currently expected to be
approximately $500,000) primarily secured in whole or in part by any portion of the 5% of Tax
Increments that are withheld by the EDA as administration fee. Senior TIF Bonds and Discretionary
TIF Bonds are referred to together as “TIF Bonds.”
The City’s obligation to issue any Senior TIF Bonds is conditioned upon execution of Assessment
Agreements specifying minimum market values sufficient to produce Available Tax Increments in
the amount necessary to pay 120% of debt service on the Senior TIF Bonds, all as determined by
the EDA and its financial advisor based on tax rates and class rates in effect at the time of
calculation.
C. Redeveloper Public Improvements and Other Public Redevelopment Costs.
Initial Notes. The EDA will reimburse the Redeveloper for Redeveloper Public Improvements and
Other Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by the Redeveloper, through issuance of one or more
pay-as-you-go TIF notes (referred to as “Initial Notes”). The EDA will issue the Initial Notes in
series, with one Initial Note primarily secured by Available Tax Increment generated by Phases IIA,
IIB and IIC and generated by all other property within the TIF District; and a second Initial Note
primarily secured by Available Tax Increment from Phase III. All Initial Notes are subordinate to
any outstanding TIF Bonds.
The Initial Notes will be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $21,100,000, and
will be issued upon completion of demolition for the relevant Phase. Each Initial Note will bear
interest at a rate of 6.75%, and will have a term of 20 years (staring no earlier than 2011).
Refunding Notes. Upon the Redeveloper’s request, the EDA will refinance the outstanding
principal amount of any Initial Note by issuing one or more tax increment revenue notes or
bonds (the "Refunding Notes") to one or more third parties. The Refunding Notes may be issued
in one or more series, or in series over time. Refunding Notes will be secured solely by
Available Tax Increment, subordinate to any outstanding TIF Bonds. Redeveloper shall be
solely responsible for securing buyer(s) for the Refunding Notes. Refunding Notes may be
additionally secured by a Duke guaranty or other credit enhancement (in which case such
Refunding Notes may or may not be issued on a tax-exempt basis, depending on the facts).
D. TIF Lookback.
The EDA will perform a “lookback” calculation on the earliest of (i) the date a Phase or facility
reaches 95% lease-up; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of the subject Phase or
facility; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the
Phase or subject facility. The Redeveloper must submit evidence of its Yield on Total Project
Costs, which is Net Operating Income in the year of the calculation divided by Total Project
Costs to date. If that result is more than 15%, the EDA and Redeveloper share equally in the
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e) Page 16
Subject: Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership
excess income. The EDA’s share is used to pay off outstanding Initial Notes or reduce the
amount of Refunding Notes.
E. Fee Reductions.
In addition to other assistance provided to the Redeveloper, the City will accept dedication of the
public spaces in the development as partial satisfaction of the park dedication fee under City
ordinances and will reduce the required park dedication fee by $900,000.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Insurance.
Redeveloper is required to maintain commercially standard casualty and liability insurance
related to the Minimum Improvements until all TIF Bonds and Initial Notes or Refunding Notes
are no longer outstanding.
B. Restrictions on Transfer.
Before completion of each Phase, Redeveloper needs approval by the EDA before assigning any
rights under the Contract to another party (to the extent Redeveloper seeks release from its
obligations under the Contract).
The parties acknowledge in the Contract that Redeveloper has already transferred Phase IIA (the
retail phase) to AD West End, except that Redeveloper remains fully obligated to ensure
construction of that Phase (that is, Duke remains the Redeveloper for that Phase under the
Contract).
The parties also acknowledge that Redeveloper intends to transfer Phase IIC (the hotel) to a third
party, but in that case Duke does expect to be released from the Contract and assign all
obligations related to that Phase to the new party. The EDA retains its rights to approve that
transfer.
C. Restrictions on Use.
Redeveloper shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in
the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property and Golden
Valley Property or any improvements erected thereon. Redeveloper agrees that no portion of the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property will be used for a sexually-oriented
business, a pawnshop, a check-cashing business (but not excluding a bank or credit union), a
tattoo business, or a gun business (but not excluding a sporting goods store that sells, as part of
its sporting goods inventory, guns and ammunition), and that such prohibitions shall be placed on
any deed transferring any portion of the Minimum Improvements to any subsequent purchaser.
Duke Redevelopment Site
Municipal Boundary
Parcels in Golden Valley
Parcels in St. Louis Park
I-394
Hwy
100
16th Street W.
Gamble Drive
Park Place
Blvd
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 17
N1
W1 W2
W3
W4
W5 W6
E4
E5
E2
E1
N2
EXISTING MONEYGRAMEXISTING 1600 TOWEREXISTING
RAMP
EXISTING
OPERATIONS
CENTER
E3 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD GAMBLE DRIVE WEST END BOULEVARD16TH STREET
HOTEL PAD SITE
PROPOSED
PARKING
STRUCTURE
PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS
OFFICE TOWER
2
OFFICE TOWER
3
OFFICE
TOWER
1
OFFICE
TOWER
4
EXISTING
HEALTH
PARTNERS
outdoor gathering spaces
indoor gathering spaces (~5000 sf)
pedestrian connection
transit stop / bus shelters OVERALL SITE PLAN
THEATER/PARKING
SECOND LEVEL
(LOBBY)
(OFFICE)
E3
W3
W4
(SKYWAY ABOVE) SKYWAY SKYWAY
UNDERGROUND
PARKING
(1000 STALLS)
(500 STALLS)
NEW
5 LEVEL
PARKING
STRUCTURE
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1 1
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 18
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 19
Sixth Draft
CONTRACT
FOR
PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
By and Among
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
And
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Dated as of: _____________, 2007
This document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 337-9300
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREAMBLE .........................................................................................................................................1
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions.......................................................................................................................3
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority and the City..............................................................8
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper....................................................9
Section 2.3 Representations and Covenants Regarding Joint Powers Agreement........................10
ARTICLE III
Land Acquisition and Conveyance
Section 3.1. Status of Property..........................................................................................................11
Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions............................................................................................11
Section 3.3. Relocation......................................................................................................................12
Section 3.4. Payment of Administrative Costs ................................................................................12
Section 3.5. Business Subsidy ..........................................................................................................12
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements.....................................................................................14
Section 4.2. Master Site Plan, Phasing Plan, and Construction Plans ............................................17
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction......................................................19
Section 4.4. Public Improvements ...................................................................................................20
Section 4.5. Certificate of Completion.............................................................................................21
Section 4.6. Reports...........................................................................................................................22
Section 4.7. Additional Requirements..............................................................................................22
Section 4.8. Maintenance Requirements..........................................................................................23
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance .......................................................................................................................25
Section 5.2. Subordination................................................................................................................27
Section 5.3. Qualifications................................................................................................................27
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 21
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes...............................................................................28
Section 6.2. Reduction of Taxes.......................................................................................................28
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreements...............................................................................................28
Section 6.4. Qualifications................................................................................................................29
ARTICLE VII
Financing
Section 7.1. Redeveloper Financing.................................................................................................30
Section 7.2. Subordination................................................................................................................30
Section 7.3. Authority Financing Generally.....................................................................................30
Section 7.4. City Public Improvements............................................................................................31
Section 7.5. Redeveloper Public Improvements and Other Public Redevelopment
Costs..............................................................................................................................31
Section 7.6. Issuance of Refunding Notes .......................................................................................32
Section 7.7. TIF Lookback................................................................................................................37
Section 7.8 Fee Reduction ...............................................................................................................38
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development...............................................................................40
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and
Assignment of Agreement............................................................................................40
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants......................................................................42
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined............................................................................................43
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default.....................................................................................................43
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive..................................................................................................44
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver..........................................................44
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Authority Representatives Not Individually
Liable.............................................................................................................................45
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity..................................................................................45
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use.......................................................................................................45
Section 10.4. Titles of Articles and Sections......................................................................................45
Section 10.5. Notices and Demands...................................................................................................45
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 22
Section 10.6. Counterparts..................................................................................................................46
Section 10.7. Recording......................................................................................................................46
Section 10.8. Minnesota Law..............................................................................................................46
Section 10.9. Disclaimer of Relationships .........................................................................................46
Section 10.10. Modifications................................................................................................................46
Section 10.11. Authority Approvals.....................................................................................................46
TESTIMONIUM .................................................................................................................................S-1
SIGNATURES ....................................................................................................................................S-1
SCHEDULE A Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property
SCHEDULE B Master Site Plan
SCHEDULE C Certificate of Completion
SCHEDULE D Assessment Agreement and Assessor’s Certification
SCHEDULE E Other Public Redevelopment Costs
SCHEDULE F Authorizing Resolution
SCHEDULE G Construction Schedule
SCHEDULE H Project Phasing Plan
SCHEDULE I Public Improvements Plan
SCHEDULE J Lookback Pro Forma
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 23
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the _________ day of _________, 2007, by and between
the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the “City”), and the ST.
LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic
(the “Authority”), established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Indiana
limited partnership (the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to the Act and was authorized to transact
business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
(the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote redevelopment of land that
is characterized by blight and blighting factors within the City, and in this connection the Authority
has created Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in the City,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has established a redevelopment tax increment financing district
known as The West End Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within the Project
and adopted a financing plan (the “TIF Plan”) for the TIF District in order to facilitate
redevelopment of certain property in the Project, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174 to 469.179; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has proposed a development within the Project which the City
and the Authority believe will promote and carry out the objectives for which redevelopment is
undertaken, will revitalize the subject site and surrounding area, result in the highest and best use of
a site that is under-utilized in its current condition, will be in the vital and best interests of the City,
will promote the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents and will be in accord with the
public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which
activities within the Project have been undertaken and are being assisted; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper owns certain property (the “Redevelopment Property”) within
the Project (except a portion transferred to another party as described herein), together with certain
adjacent property in the City of Golden Valley (the “Golden Valley Property”) which it intends to
develop in accordance with this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Authority entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement with the
Redeveloper dated May 27, 2007, as amended by a First Amendment to Preliminary Development
Agreement dated September 4, 2007 (the “Preliminary Agreement”), under which the parties agreed
to work toward a definitive development agreement regarding the Redevelopment Property and
Golden Valley Property; and
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 24
WHEREAS, the City and the Authority believe that the redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property pursuant to this Agreement, and fulfillment
generally of this Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the City and the health, safety,
morals, and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the
applicable state and local laws and requirements under which activities within the Project have been
undertaken and are being assisted; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the TIF Plan, the Authority is willing to provide financial
assistance in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 25
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears
from the context:
“Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081, as amended.
“Affiliate” means with respect to an entity (a) any corporation, partnership, limited
liability company or other business entity or person controlling, controlled by or under common
control with the entity, and (b) any successor to such party by merger, acquisition, reorganization
or similar transaction involving all or substantially all of the assets of such party (or such
Affiliate). For the purpose hereof the words “controlling”, “controlled by” and “under common
control with” shall mean, with respect to any corporation, partnership, limited liability company
or other business entity, the ownership of fifty percent or more of the voting interests in such
entity or possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of
management policies of such entity, whether through ownership of voting securities or by
contract or otherwise.
“Agreement” means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified,
amended, or supplemented.
“AD West End” means AD West End, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, whose
members are Duke Construction Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership, and Jeffrey R.
Anderson Real Estate, Inc., an Ohio corporation.
“Assessment Agreement” means any Assessment Agreement entered into pursuant to
Section 6.3 hereof.
“AUAR” means the alternative urban area review conducted by the City to review the
environmental impacts of redevelopment in the TIF District, approved April 9, 2007.
“Authority” means the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority.
“Authority Representative” means the Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director or
any person designated by the Executive Director to serve as Authority Representative.
Authorizing Resolution” means the resolution of the Authority, substantially in the form of
attached Schedule F to be adopted by the Authority to authorize the issuance of the Initial Notes.
“Available Tax Increment” means on any payment date under the Initial Notes and
Refunding Notes, 95 percent of the Tax Increments received by the City from the County pursuant
to the TIF Act in the six-month period before such payment date from the TIF District, after
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 26
payment or provision for payment of debt service due on such date with respect to any outstanding
Senior TIF Bonds.
“Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, a day on which
the City is closed for business, or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized by
law or executive order to close.
“Business Subsidy Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as
amended.
“City” means the City of St. Louis Park.
“City Public Improvements” means the public improvements to be constructed by the City
and so described on Schedule I.
“Certificate of Completion” means the certification provided by the Authority to the
Redeveloper, or the purchaser of any part, parcel or unit of the Redevelopment Property and Golden
Valley Property, pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement.
“Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
“Construction Plans” means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on
the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property and
Golden Valley Property, including the Minimum Improvements, which (a) shall be as detailed as
the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are submitted to the appropriate
building officials of the City, and (b) shall include at least the following: (1) site plan; (2)
foundation plan; (3) basement plans; (4) floor plan for each floor; (5) cross sections of each (length
and width); (6) elevations (all sides); (7) landscape plan; (8) grading, drainage and utilities plans;
and (9) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as the Authority may reasonably
request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed construction work.
“County” means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota.
“Discretionary TIF Bonds” has the meaning provided in Section 7.4 hereof.
“Event of Default” means an action by the Redeveloper or the Authority listed in Article IX
of this Agreement.
“Golden Valley Property” means the real property so described in Schedule A of this
Agreement.
“Holder” means the owner of a Mortgage.
“HRA Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 27
“Initial Notes” means the Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Notes to be issued by the
Authority as described in Section 7.3 hereof.
“Joint Powers Agreement” or “JPA” means that certain joint powers agreement proposed to
be entered into by the City and the City of Golden Valley which will permit the City to treat the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property as a unified site under the control of the City,
and which shall impose identified obligations on the parties to the JPA.
“Master Site Plan” means the plan for development of the Redevelopment Property and
Golden Valley Property, attached as Schedule B, as it may be revised from time to time under
Section 4.2.
“Material Change” means a change in Construction Plans (excluding buyer options and
upgrades) that materially adversely affects generation of Tax Increment or reduces the number of
square feet of rentable space in buildings comprising the Minimum Improvements by more than 5%
(measured against the square footage in originally-approved Construction Plans), or results in a
“major amendment” to the PUD as described in the City’s zoning code.
“Maximum Note Amount” has the meaning provided in Section 7.5(b) hereof.
“Minimum Improvements” means the construction on the Redevelopment Property and
Golden Valley Property of the improvements described in Section 4.1 (b).
“Mortgage” means any mortgage made by the Redeveloper or its Affiliate which is secured,
in whole or in part, with the Redevelopment Property or Golden Valley Property.
“Other Public Redevelopment Costs” means the costs to be incurred by Redeveloper on the
Redevelopment Property that are described in Schedule E. The term includes all third-party
engineering and related out-of-pocket soft costs.
“Parcel” means any parcel of the Redevelopment Property, the Golden Valley Property, or
the TIF District, as the context requires.
“Phase” means a discrete portion of the Minimum Improvements as described in Section
4.1(b) and the Master Site Plan. The term includes both the improvements and the Parcels on which
they are constructed unless the context requires otherwise.
“Phase I” means the demolition, site work, and infrastructure improvements on the
Redevelopment Property, as described in Section 4.1(b).
“Phase IIA” means the retail and office development on the Redevelopment Property, as
described in Section 4.1(b).
“Phase IIB” means the office development on the Redevelopment Property and a portion of
the Golden Valley Property, as described in Section 4.1(b).
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 28
“Phase IIC” means the hotel development on the Redevelopment Property, as described in
Section 4.1(b).
“Phase III” means the office development on the Redevelopment Property and a portion of
the Golden Valley property, as described in Section 4.1(b).
“Planning Contract” has the meaning provided in Section 3.1(d).
“Plat” means the final plat of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, as
approved and recorded in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles.
“Preliminary Agreement” means the Preliminary Development Agreement between the
Authority and Redeveloper dated May 27, 2007, as amended by a First Amendment to Preliminary
Development Agreement dated September 4, 2007.
“Project” means the City’s Redevelopment Project No. 1.
“Project Area” means the real property located within the boundaries of the Project.
“Project Phasing Plan” means the retail, commercial and office elements of each Phase to be
constructed by the Redeveloper, and the Public Improvements to be constructed by the Redeveloper
and the City.
“Public Improvements” means, collectively, the Redeveloper Public Improvements and the
City Public Improvements all as such terms are defined in Section 4.4 and described in Schedule I,
and includes all engineering and related soft costs.
“PUD” has the meaning provided in Section 3.3.
“Redeveloper” means Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana partnership, and any
permitted successors and assigns of Redeveloper.
“Redeveloper Public Improvements” means the public improvements to be constructed
by Redeveloper and so described on Schedule I.
“Redevelopment Plan” means the Authority’s Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1 as modified November 19, 2007 and as it may be further modified.
“Redevelopment Property” means the real property so described in Schedule A of this
Agreement.
“Refunding Notes” has the meaning provided in Section 7.6.
“REMA” has the meaning provided in Section 4.8.
“Required Commencement Date” means the dates so specified in Schedule G.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 29
“Required Completion Date” means the dates so specified in Schedule G.
“Senior TIF Bonds” has the meaning provided in Section 7.4 hereof.
“State” means the State of Minnesota.
“Tax Increment” means that portion of the real property taxes which is paid with respect to
the property within the TIF District (or a specified Parcel thereof, as the context requires) and which
is remitted to the City as tax increment pursuant to the Tax Increment Act. The term Tax
Increment does not include any amounts retained by or payable to the State Auditor under
Section 469.177, subd. 11 of the Tax Increment Act, or any amounts described in Section
469.174, subd. 25, clauses (2) through (4) of the Tax Increment Act.
“Tax Increment Act” or “TIF Act” means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended.
“Tax Increment District” or “TIF District” means The West End Tax Increment Financing
District, as it may be modified.
“Tax Increment Plan” or “TIF Plan” means the City’s Tax Increment Financing Plan for The
West End Tax Increment Financing District, as approved November 19, 2007, and as it may be
amended.
“Tax Official” means any County assessor; County auditor; County or State board of
equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the tax
court of the State, or the State Supreme Court.
“TIF Bonds” has the meaning provided in Section 7.4 hereof.
“Termination Date” means the date that all the Initial Notes, Refunding Notes and TIF
Bonds have all been paid in full, redeemed or prepaid, or defeased in accordance with their terms.
“Transfer” has the meaning provided in Section 8.2(a).
“Unavoidable Delays” means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking to
be excused as a result thereof which are the direct or indirect result of strikes, other labor troubles,
prolonged adverse weather or acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Minimum Improvements,
litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly
results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the Authority in
exercising its rights under this Agreement) which directly result in delays. Unavoidable Delays
shall not include delays in the Redeveloper’s obtaining of permits or governmental approvals
necessary to enable construction of the Minimum Improvements by the dates such construction is
required under Section 4.3 of this Agreement, unless (a) Redeveloper has timely filed any
application and materials required by the City for such permit or approvals, and (b) the delay is
beyond the reasonable control of the Redeveloper.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 30
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority and the City. The Authority and City make
the following representations as the basis for the undertaking on its part herein contained:
(a) The Authority is an economic development authority duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State. Under the provisions of the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority has the
power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) The activities of the Authority are undertaken for the purpose of fostering the
redevelopment of certain real property that is or was occupied primarily by substandard and
obsolete buildings, which will revitalize this portion of the Project, increase tax base, and result in
the highest and best use of a site that is underutilized in its current condition.
(c) The Authority has created the TIF District, which includes the Redevelopment
Property and certain adjacent property within the City not owned by Redeveloper, has adopted a
modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan in accordance with all procedures required under the
TIF Act to approve the TIF District as a redevelopment district as defined in the Act, except (as
of the date of this Agreement) for filing the request for certification of the district with the County.
(d) The Authority and the City will take no action, nor omit to take any action,
regarding the TIF District that materially impairs the collection or payment of Tax Increment.
(e) The Authority and City will use their best efforts to facilitate redevelopment of
the Minimum Improvements, including but not limited to cooperating with the Redeveloper in
obtaining necessary administrative, environmental and land use approvals.
(f) The City is a home rule charter city duly organized and existing under the laws of
the State, and is a state public body under Section 469.041 of the HRA Act. Under the
provisions of its charter and the HRA Act, the City has the power to enter into this Agreement
and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(g) In the event the Authority or City at any time reasonably estimates that, by reason
of changes in the method of taxation for the support of cities, counties or school districts,
Available Tax Increment is insufficient to pay the principal of and interest on any outstanding
Initial Notes or Refunding Notes when due, then if legislatively-created options to ameliorate the
adverse effect upon tax increment financing are available to the City and/or the Authority, the
City and/or the Authority as applicable will exercise such options in such a way as to retain to
the extent possible sufficient Available Tax Increment to pay the principal of and interest on the
Initial Notes and Refunding Notes when due; provided that the City or Authority have no
obligation to exercise any option that they determine, in their reasonable discretion, will result in
materially adverse financial consequences for the City or Authority.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 31
(h) Neither the City nor the Authority has received any notice or communication from
any local, state or federal official that its or their activities or those of the Redeveloper in the Project
Area may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those notices
or communications of which the Redeveloper is aware).
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper
represents and warrants that:
(a) The Redeveloper is a limited partnership duly organized and in good standing under
the laws of the State of Indiana, is not in violation of any provisions of its bylaws, its partnership
agreement or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the States of Indiana or of Minnesota, is
duly authorized to transact business within the States of Indiana and Minnesota, has power to
enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of
this Agreement by proper action of its partners.
(b) The Redeveloper has not received any notice or communication from any local, state
or federal official that its activities or those of the Authority in the Project Area may be or will be in
violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those notices or communications of
which the Authority is aware). The Redeveloper is not aware of any facts, the existence of which
would cause it to be in violation of or give any person a valid claim under any local, state or federal
environmental law, regulation or review procedure.
(c) The Redeveloper will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and
approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state and
federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Minimum Improvements
may be lawfully constructed. Neither Redeveloper nor AD West End obtained a building permit for
any portion of the Minimum Improvements before the date of approval of the TIF Plan for the TIF
District. However, prior to the date of this Agreement (and in accordance with the Preliminary
Agreement and the Authority’s Resolution No. 07-07 approved September 4, 2007), the
Redeveloper obtained permits for and commenced demolition of certain buildings on the
Redevelopment Property.
(d) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the
terms, conditions or provisions of its partnership agreement or any evidences of indebtedness,
agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Redeveloper is now a party or by which it
is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(e) The proposed development by the Redeveloper hereunder would not occur but for
the tax increment financing assistance being provided by the Authority hereunder.
(f) The Redeveloper shall promptly advise Authority in writing of all litigation or
claims adversely affecting any part of the Minimum Improvements and all written complaints and
charges made by any governmental authority materially adversely affecting the Minimum
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 32
Improvements or materially adversely affecting Redeveloper or its business which may delay or
require changes in construction of the Minimum Improvements.
Section 2.3. Representations and Covenants Regarding Joint Powers Agreement. (a) The
City and Redeveloper acknowledge that the Redevelopment Property is located within the City, but
six acres of land owned by Redeveloper and needed for the proposed redevelopment are located in
the City of Golden Valley (such site being referred to as the “Golden Valley Property” and
described in Schedule A hereto). As described in Section 4.1(b) a portion of the Minimum
Improvements are expected to constructed on the Golden Valley Property, and the parties agree that
redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property will be greatly enhanced if it can be developed as if
it were wholly within a single city, rather than split in two. Therefore the City represents that it
shall use its best efforts to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Golden Valley to
address the issues presented by the geography of the Redevelopment Property and the Golden
Valley Property, and to treat those combined properties as if they constituted a single site
completely within the City. The City currently expects that the JPA, if approved by each city, will
give the City the primary authority for the Redevelopment Property and the Golden Valley
Property, including responsibility for development approvals, on-going land use regulations and
provision of public services. The City represents it will carry out its obligations under the JPA
requirements, if it is approved by each city. The Redeveloper represents that, upon request of the
City, Redeveloper will execute a consent to the JPA, subject to Redeveloper’s reasonable
satisfaction with the terms of any obligations imposed on Redeveloper in the JPA.
(b) The JPA may include certain obligations (including without limitation street
connections and traffic calming measures) to be undertaken on the Golden Valley Property, which
obligations the City and Redeveloper agree and understand will be the responsibility of
Redeveloper. Redeveloper agrees to perform, at its cost, all obligations given to fee owner of the
subject property under the JPA if it is approved and executed by both cities.
(c) If a JPA is not executed in full by the City and the City of Golden Valley by April 1,
2008, the parties hereto agree to negotiate in good faith regarding reconfiguration of and
construction schedule for the office buildings and associated parking facilities that make up Phase
IIB and Phase III, and regarding amendments to this Agreement necessary to accommodate that
change. The parties further agree that any amendment to this Agreement will be guided by these
principles: (a) the revised Minimum Improvements must include substantially the same total square
footage of office space as provided in the current Master Site Plan (whether improvements are
located entirely in the City or partly in the City and partly in the City of Golden Valley); (b) if costs
to Redeveloper increase (for example, because parking is integrated into office buildings located
within the City) and Redeveloper seeks additional financial assistance, Redeveloper will be required
to demonstrate to the Authority’s satisfaction that such increased costs render the revised plan
infeasible without additional assistance, and (c) any additional Tax Increment assistance is provided
within the same twenty-year period described in Sections 7.5 and 7.6.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 33
ARTICLE III
Land Acquisition and Conveyance
Section 3.1. Status of Property. (a) The Redevelopment Property and the Golden Valley
Property, respectively, consists of the Parcels so described in Schedule A. As of the date of this
Agreement, the Redeveloper has acquired all Parcels of the Redevelopment Property and the
Golden Valley Property, but has transferred to AD West End the portion of the Redevelopment
Property allocated to Phase IIA. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority has no
obligation to acquire any of the Redevelopment Property or the Golden Valley Property; provided
that (i) Redeveloper will be required to dedicate certain property to the City as described in
paragraph (b) of this Section, and (ii) nothing in this Agreement will be construed to require
Redeveloper to acquire or dedicate any property (or interest in property) that is necessary to
construct the City Public Improvements but is not owned by Redeveloper or AD West End as of the
date of this Agreement.
(b) The Redeveloper shall prepare and obtain City approval of a planned unit
development (“PUD”) and Plat of the Redevelopment Property (and the Golden Valley Property, to
the extent the City has jurisdiction over such matters under the JPA), at Redeveloper’s cost and
subject to all City ordinances and procedures. The Plat and PUD must be consistent with the Master
Site Plan, provided that nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the City’s authority in
reviewing the PUD and preliminary plat, or to preclude revisions requested or required by the City.
The relationship between the Master Site Plan and the PUD is further described in Section 4.2(a)
hereof. In the Plat, the Redeveloper must dedicate to the City all public rights of way and utility
easements. Redeveloper must cause AD West End (and the owner of Phase IIC, if such Phase has
been transferred) to join in the Plat and cooperate with the City in any matters related to the Plat and
PUD.
By no later than one (1) year from the date of execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper
must apply for approval of (i) a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD of the entire Redevelopment
Property (and the Golden Valley Property, to the extent the City has jurisdiction over such matters
under the JPA), and (ii) final PUD and final Plat of the area encompassing Phase IIA and IIB. In
connection with the plat and PUD, the parties agree and understand that the Redeveloper and City
will enter into a development agreement (the “Planning Contract”) that addresses planning and land
use requirements and is consistent with the covenants regarding the Minimum Improvements and
Public Improvements described in Article IV hereto, and shall include the schedule for the
application for final PUD and final plat of the areas encompassing Phases IIA, IIB, IIC and III.
Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions. (a) The Redeveloper acknowledges that the
Authority makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils or the buildings or
structures on the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property or the fitness of the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property for construction of the Minimum
Improvements or any other purpose for which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and
that the assistance provided to the Redeveloper under this Agreement neither implies any
responsibility by the Authority for any contamination of the Redevelopment Property and Golden
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 34
Valley Property nor imposes any obligation on such parties to participate in any cleanup of the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property.
(b) Without limiting its obligations under Section 8.3 of this Agreement the
Redeveloper further agrees that, except for any misrepresentation or any misconduct, affirmative act
or negligence of the Authority or the City and except for any breach by the Authority or the City of
its obligations under this Agreement, the Redeveloper will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
Authority, the City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or
actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, unless and to the extent that such hazardous
wastes or pollutants are present as a result of the actions or omissions of the indemnities. Nothing in
this section will be construed to limit or affect any limitations on liability of the City or Authority
under State or federal law, including without limitation Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.04 and
604.02.
Section 3.3. Relocation. (a) As of the date of this Agreement, no previous businesses or
tenants occupy any Parcels containing buildings or structures proposed for demolition, other than
entities which are an Affiliate of the Redeveloper. Upon or before commencement of construction
of the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper must deliver to the Authority a written relocation
waiver agreement, in a form approved by the Authority, executed by the respective entity occupying
any building on any parcel of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property to be
demolished by the Redeveloper. The waiver must, at a minimum, describe the type and amounts of
relocation assistance services, payments and benefits for which the entity might be eligible,
separately listing those services being waived.
(b) Without limiting the Redeveloper's obligations under Section 8.3 hereof, the
Redeveloper will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority and its governing body
members, employees, agents, and contractors from any and all claims for benefits or payments
arising out of the relocation or displacement of any person from any Parcels of the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property as a result of the implementation of this Agreement.
Section 3.4. Payment of Administrative Costs. Until the Termination Date, the
Redeveloper is responsible to pay all reasonable out of pocket costs for legal and financial advising
services incurred by the Authority that are directly attributable to or incurred in connection with the
negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and other documents and agreements in connection
with the development contemplated hereunder and including all costs related to the creation of the
TIF District (collectively, “Administrative Costs”). Administrative Costs shall be evidenced by
invoices, statements or other reasonable written evidence of the costs incurred by the Authority,
copies of which will be provided to the Redeveloper upon request. Upon termination of this
Agreement in accordance with its terms, Redeveloper remains obligated to pay Administrative
Costs incurred as of the effective date of termination.
Section 3.5. Business Subsidy. The Redeveloper warrants and represents that
Redeveloper acquired the Redevelopment Property for the purpose and in the expectation of
redevelopment, and that Redeveloper’s investment in the purchase of the Redevelopment
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 35
Property will equal at least 70% of the County assessor’s finalized market value of the
Redevelopment Property for the 2007 assessment year, calculated as follows:
Aggregate cost of acquisition of Redevelopment Property: $27,609,924
Assessor's finalized market value of Redevelopment Property (pay 2008): $29,082,000
Cost as percentage of value: 94.4%
Accordingly, the parties agree and understand that the financial assistance described in
this Agreement does not constitute a business subsidy within the meaning of the Business
Subsidy Act. The Redeveloper releases and waives any claim against the Authority and its
governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof arising from
application of the Business Subsidy Act to this Agreement, including without limitation any
claim that the Authority failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to this
Agreement.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 36
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements,
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements. (a) Generally. The Redeveloper agrees that,
subject to all the terms of this Agreement, (i) it will construct or cause construction of Phases I, IIA,
IIB and IIC of the Minimum Improvements and the Redeveloper Public Improvements on the
Redevelopment Property and/or the Golden Valley Property, as the case may be; (ii) subject to
market conditions and financing availability, it will construct or cause the construction of Phase III
of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property or the Golden Valley Property, as
the case may be; (iii) all construction will be substantially in accordance with the Master Site Plan
and approved Construction Plans and (iv) it will at all times while Redeveloper owns any Phase and
through the Maturity Date operate and maintain, preserve and keep each Phase of the Minimum
Improvements, or cause each Phase, to be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances
and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair and condition. The Authority and the City shall
have no obligation to operate or maintain the Minimum Improvements, except as otherwise
provided herein.
(b) Minimum Improvements. The Minimum Improvements consist of the following
constructed in phases, located as shown on the Master Site Plan (Schedule B):
Phase I: Demolition of all buildings on the Redevelopment Property (except the two
existing restaurants on the Parcel at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard) and on the Golden Valley Property;
public utility relocation and construction work under Utica Avenue and 16th Street; soil correction
and earthwork for the entire Redevelopment Property; and the construction of Utica Avenue and
16th Street (which work also constitutes a portion of the Redeveloper Public Improvements
described in Section 4.4(a) hereof);
Phase IIA: Approximately 350,000 square feet of retail, entertainment, and restaurants;
approximately 28,000 square feet of second story office space, certain public space as described in
Section 4.1(b) hereof, and all related parking structures; and the construction of West End
Boulevard as a private road; all as generally shown on the Master Site Plan on the western portion
of the redevelopment, such Phase IIA to be integrated with and connected to Phases IIB, IIC and III.
Phase IIB: Approximately 277,555 square feet of class A office space and space for
related uses in one office building to be located on the eastern portion of the Redevelopment
Property along with site improvements and structured or surface parking as required. Parking
facilities for Phase IIB are currently expected to be constructed on the Golden Valley Property,
subject to future modification in the event no JPA is timely entered into as described in Section 2.3
hereof.
Phase IIC: a 130 to 140 room hotel, with 75 stalls of parking provided on-site so long as
additional shared parking with other Phases is available.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 37
Phase III: Approximately 833,000 square feet of class A office space and space for
related uses, in addition to Phase IIB, to be located in two or three office buildings to be located
adjacent to, integrated with and to share parking with Phase IIB. Parking facilities for Phase III are
currently expected to be constructed on the Golden Valley Property, subject to future modification
in the event no JPA is timely entered into as described in Section 2.3 hereof. Phase III may be
further staged in additional phases to accommodate the need to meet changing market conditions
and financing availability.
(c) Additional Covenants. In addition to any other requirements of this Agreement, the
Minimum Improvements must substantially comply with the Master Site Plan and must meet the
following specifications:
(1) The Redeveloper shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) core and shell certification for all
Phase IIB and Phase III office development; and in any event, must construct all
office developments in Phases IIB and III in accordance with core and shell LEED
standards in effect as of November 19, 2007 (whether or not Redeveloper obtains
actual certification). As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for a
subject Phase, Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority either (a) evidence of core
and shell LEED certification or (b) in absence of actual certification, evidence in a
form satisfactory to the Authority that construction complied with core and shell
LEED standards in effect as of November 19, 2007. The requirements of this clause
do not apply to office buildings in which a single tenant is leasing at least 50% of the
leaseable square footage (generally referred to as “build to suit”).
(2) The Redeveloper shall use commercially reasonable efforts to incorporate core and
shell LEED design elements for the retail portions of Phase IIA. Such design
elements shall be identified and articulated in a report to the Authority upon
construction completion, and in any event as a condition for issuance of the
Certificate of Completion for that Phase.
(3) The Redeveloper agrees to provide outdoor gathering places in Phases IIA, IIB, and
III, as generally shown on the Master Site Plan. The outdoor gathering places shall
include, plazas, green space, or other open space available for use by the general
public and incorporating features such as fountains, space for public art, street
furnishings, special lighting or other public amenities. Such spaces will be privately
owned, controlled and managed but available for use by the public, subject to such
protocols and scheduling as reasonably established by the owner of such Phase. As
a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for each Phase containing
open space as described in this paragraph, the City and Redeveloper shall enter into
a use agreement (a “Use Agreement”), that will generally provide for notice and
review by Redeveloper of activities initiated by the City, and will describe the
respective insurance and maintenance obligations of the parties in connection with
such open space.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 38
(4) The Redeveloper agrees to provide at least one indoor public gathering place in
Phase IIA of approximately 5,000 square feet, as generally shown on the Master Site
Plan. Part of this space will include a separate meeting room of approximately 750
square feet for use by the public. Such space will be privately owned, controlled and
managed but available for use by the public. As a condition to issuance of a
Certificate of Completion for Phase IIA, the City and Redeveloper must enter into a
Use Agreement (as described in clause (3) above) in connection with the indoor
public gathering space.
(5) The Redeveloper shall provide pedestrian connections throughout the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, substantially in accordance
with the Master Site Plan.
(6) The Redeveloper shall provide a public pedestrian/bicycle connection through the
structured parking in Phase IIB or III that joins Wayzata Boulevard and Utica
Avenue.
(7) The Redeveloper shall accommodate public transit throughout the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property, substantially in accordance with the Master
Site Plan.
(8) The Redeveloper shall accommodate public art throughout the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property; provided that Redeveloper shall not be
responsible to pay for the acquisition, installation, removal, security, insurance or
other display costs of such public art. Nothing in this Section will be construed to
prohibit Redeveloper from installing art at Redeveloper’s discretion (and at
Redeveloper’s cost), and Redeveloper agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts
to include such art in its designs for the Minimum Improvements.
(9) The Redeveloper shall accommodate wireless communication construction and
cabling by the City throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley
Property, including without limitation granting or dedicating to the City (without
cost to the City) easements or similar rights to (i) place fiber and conduit in private
roadways, from public or private roadways to each building, within each building to
a point of presence, and from the point of presence to the roof; (ii) place wireless
radio equipment on each building’s roof; (iii) place fiber and conduit from each
building’s point of presence to any public spaces in each building (e.g., “cop shop”);
and (iv) set up wireless or fiber access in public spaces in each building (e.g. lobby,
waiting areas). All such rights and easements are subject to reasonable review by
Redeveloper as to location and aesthetics. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
herein, Redeveloper and City shall at their own cost install respective portions of the
conduit for wireless communication, as part of Redeveloper Public Improvements
and City Public Improvements described in Section 4.4 hereof. Except for
contribution of easements or other rights described above (and except as otherwise
provided in Section 4.4) installation of wireless communication and cabling shall be
at no cost to Redeveloper.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 39
(10) The Redeveloper agrees to provide to the City, without charge, approximately 250
square feet of finished space for use as a neighborhood City police station. The
police station must include restroom facilities, the area of which may not be included
in calculating the minimum square footage. The area of the police station will be
part of the 5,000 square foot public gathering space identified in clause (4) above.
The restroom facility for the police station can be part of an adjacent public
restroom. The police station must be located within Phase IIA at a site approved in
writing by the City. The Redeveloper must accommodate the security and
communication requirements identified in the specifications provided by the City.
The City’s approval of site location may not be unreasonably withheld. Upon
completion, the Redeveloper must operate and maintain the facility at Redeveloper’s
cost, including without limitation cleaning, heat and electricity, and servicing of the
restroom; provided that as a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for
Phase IIA, the City and Redeveloper must enter into a Use Agreement (as described
in clause (3) above) in connection with the police station. If the City at any time
determines that use of the identified space as a police station is no longer necessary
or desirable, the City and Redeveloper shall negotiate in good faith regarding an
alternative public use of that space, and make any necessary amendments to the Use
Agreement.
(11) The Redeveloper agrees to construct a public restroom for men and for women, or
two uni-sex bathrooms, located within Phase IIA at a site and with amenities
mutually agreed by the Redeveloper and the City. The area of the public restroom
will be part of the 5,000 square foot public space identified in Item 3 above. Upon
completion, the Redeveloper must operate and maintain the public restroom at
Redeveloper’s cost, including without limitation cleaning, heat and electricity and
general restroom servicing.
(12) The City and Authority will cooperate with Redeveloper in efforts to provide for
outdoor seating at restaurants in any Phase, subject to compliance with City
ordinances and City rules and regulations.
Section 4.2. Master Site Plan; Phasing Plans and Construction Plans. (a) Master Site Plan.
The Master Site Plan for the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property is attached
hereto as Schedule B. The parties agree and understand that the Master Site Plan may be refined
and modified as part of the review and approval process for the PUD, and that upon City approval
of the preliminary PUD for the entire Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property (and the
final PUD for each Phase), the preliminary or final PUD (as the case may be) will supersede the
Master Site Plan shown in Schedule B. Any changes to any preliminary or final PUD after approval
by the City will be processed according to City codes and procedures, including any provisions
described in the PUD approvals and the Planning Contract.
(b) Phasing Plans. The Project Phasing Plan for the Redevelopment Property and
Golden Valley Property is attached hereto as Schedule H, as a supplement to the Master Site Plan
(the “Phasing Plan”). The Phasing Plan describes the retail, commercial and office elements of each
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 40
Phase to be constructed by the Redeveloper, and describes the phasing of Public Improvements to
be constructed by the Redeveloper and the City (as further described in Section 4.4 and Schedule I).
The parties agree and understand that the Phasing Plan may be refined and modified as part of the
review and approval process for the PUD, and that upon City approval of the preliminary PUD for
the entire Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property (and the final PUD for each Phase),
the preliminary or final PUD (as the case may be) will supersede the Phasing Plan and the Master
Site Plan shown in Schedule B.
(c) Construction Plans. Before commencement of construction of any Phase of the
Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority Construction Plans for that
Phase. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the relevant improvements for
the respective Phase and shall be in material conformity with the Redevelopment Plan, the PUD, the
Master Site Plan, this Agreement, and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. The
Authority Representative will approve the Construction Plans in writing if: (i) the Construction
Plans materially conform to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) the Construction Plans
materially conform to the Redevelopment Plan, the PUD and the Master Site Plan; (iii) the
Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations; (iv) the Construction Plans are adequate to provide for construction of the relevant
improvements; and (v) no Event of Default has occurred. Approval may be based upon a review by
the City’s building official of the Construction Plans and shall be conclusive evidence that
Redeveloper has satisfied its obligations under this Section. No approval by the Authority
Representative shall relieve the Redeveloper of the obligation to comply with the terms of this
Agreement or of the Redevelopment Plan, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules
and regulations, or to construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance therewith. No approval
by the Authority Representative shall constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. Within 30
business days after receipt of complete Construction Plans and permit applications for a building
within any Phase, the Authority will deliver to the Redeveloper an initial review letter describing
any comments or changes requested by Authority staff. Thereafter, the parties shall negotiate in
good faith regarding final approval of Construction Plans for that building. The Authority’s
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Said approval shall constitute a conclusive
determination that the Construction Plans (and the subject Phase, constructed in accordance with
said plans) comply to the Authority’s satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating
thereto. All review of Construction Plans by the Authority under this Section shall be concurrent
with any review by City officials under City ordinances and procedures.
(d) Change in Construction Plans. If the Redeveloper desires to make any Material
Change in the Construction Plans after their approval by the Authority, the Redeveloper shall
submit the proposed change to the Authority for its approval. If the Construction Plans, as modified
by the proposed change, conform to the requirements of this Section 4.2 of this Agreement with
respect to such previously approved Construction Plans, the Authority shall approve the proposed
change and notify the Redeveloper in writing of its approval. Such change in the Construction
Plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the Authority unless rejected, in whole or in part,
by written notice by the Authority to the Redeveloper, setting forth in detail the reasons therefor.
Such rejection shall be made within 30 days after receipt of the notice of such change. The
Authority’s approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 41
(e) Redeveloper Waiver of Claims. The Redeveloper waives any and all claims and
causes of action whatsoever resulting from the review of the Construction Plans by the Authority
and/or any changes in the Construction Plans requested by the Authority, except for any failure by
Authority to perform its obligations under this Section 4.2. Neither the Authority, the City, nor any
employee or official of the Authority or City shall be responsible in any manner whatsoever for any
defect in the Construction Plans or in any work done pursuant to the Construction Plans, including
changes reasonably requested by the Authority.
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction. (a) General Requirements.
All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided by the
Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property shall be in substantial
conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the
Authority. The Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, and every successor in
interest to the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, or any part thereof, that the
Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently proceed to
completion the development of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property
through the construction of the Minimum Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall
in any event be commenced and completed within the period specified in this Section 4.3. After
the date of this Agreement and until construction of the Minimum Improvements has been
completed, the Redeveloper shall make reports, in such detail and at such times as may
reasonably be requested by the Authority, as to the actual progress of the Redeveloper with
respect to such construction.
(b) Minimum Improvements. (i) Subject to Unavoidable Delays (and except as qualified
by clause (iii) of this paragraph b and by Section 2.3(c) of this Agreement), the Redeveloper shall
commence construction of each Phase of the Minimum Improvements by the Required
Commencement Date, and shall substantially complete construction of each Phase by the Required
Completion Date, all as set forth in Schedule G, attached hereto. The term “commence” means: for
Phase I, the making of visible improvements, including without limitation subsurface excavation but
excluding mere surface grading; and for all other Phases, the construction of visible improvements
above or below ground level, including footings or foundations. All work with respect to the
Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property shall be in substantial conformity with the Construction Plans
as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the Authority.
(ii) If the Redeveloper anticipates that the timetable for any Phase will not be met,
Redeveloper shall provide a written and oral presentation to the City Council of the City at a regular
City Council meeting prior to the relevant Required Commencement Date or Completion Date. The
report must describe the reasons for the expected failure to meet the schedule, evidence of
Redeveloper’s due diligence in working toward construction of the relevant Phase, and a detailed
revised schedule. Failure to timely provide such written and oral report is an Event of Default.
Compliance with the reporting requirement of this clause will not relieve the Redeveloper’s
obligation to commence or complete the relevant Phase according to Schedule G (except as
otherwise provided in clause (iii), below, regarding Phase III).
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 42
(iii) The parties understand that the schedule for construction of Phase III is subject to
market conditions and financing availability existing at the time of construction and execution in
full of a JPA. The Redeveloper agrees to use its commercially reasonable efforts to commence and
complete construction Phase III by the Commencement Date and Completion Date as described in
Schedule G. Failure to commence or complete construction of Phase III by those dates is not an
Event of Default under this Agreement, provided that failure to comply with the reporting
requirement under clause (ii) regarding Phase III remains an Event of Default.
(c) In the event of Unavoidable Delays, the number of days of Unavoidable Delay will
be added to all dates set forth in Schedule G, and such extended dates will control for the purposes
of Section 4.3(a) and (b).
Section 4.4. Public Improvements. (a) Redeveloper Public Improvements. The
Redeveloper must undertake all work identified as “Redeveloper Public Improvements” in the
Public Improvements Plan on Schedule I, and pursuant to the overall Phasing Plan shown in
Schedule H.
Before commencing construction, the Redeveloper must submit plans and specifications
regarding the Redeveloper Public Improvements for approval by the City substantially in
accordance with procedures for Construction Plans described in Section 4.2 (except to the extent
Redeveloper will use plans provided by the City, as described in Schedule I).
All work on the Redeveloper Public Improvements shall be in accordance with the approved
construction plans and the Phasing Plan, and shall comply with all City requirements regarding
such improvements. The parties agree and understand that the City will accept the improvements
in accordance with City ordinances and procedures and the Planning Contract.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in Schedules H and I, the portion of the
Redeveloper Public Improvements consisting of Utica Avenue and 16th Street are also deemed to
be part of Phase I of the Minimum Improvements, and are subject to the construction timetable
for Phase I shown in Schedule G. Subject to Unavoidable Delays and issuance of all applicable
permits by the City, Redeveloper agrees to substantially complete construction of the “Streets
and Utilities” portion of Redeveloper Public Improvements by August 1, 2009, and to
substantially complete the “Streetscape” portion of Redeveloper Public Improvements by June
10, 2010. Redeveloper Public Improvements will be deemed to be “substantially complete”
upon acceptance of the relevant improvement by the City in accordance with City ordinances and
procedures.
Redeveloper shall pay all costs of Redeveloper Public Improvements, subject to reimbursement
to the extent provided in Section 7.5 and 7.6 hereof. Further, Redeveloper must guaranty, or
cause contractors to guaranty all Redeveloper Public Improvements for one year after substantial
completion of the relevant improvement, except that the guaranty period for underground
utilities shall be two years. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the requirements of this
paragraph will be included in the relevant Planning Contract. The parties further acknowledge
that Redeveloper’s obligation to construct Redeveloper Public Improvements is, in part, a
condition of approval of the Plat; therefore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358,
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 43
subd. 2, such construction is not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section
471.345 and 574.26; provided that nothing in this paragraph is intended to release or affect
Redeveloper’s obligations under Section 8.3(b) hereof.
(b) City Public Improvements. The City will undertake the work described as “City
Public Improvements” on Schedule I, in accordance with the overall Phasing Plan on Schedule
H. The City shall construct City Public Improvements (or prepare concept plans in the case of
16th Street streetscaping) in accordance with all City procedures for such improvements.
Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the City agrees to substantially complete construction of the City
Public Improvements by August 1, 2009, subject to the City’s ability to issue at least Senior TIF
Bonds in accordance with Section 7.4(b).
The City is responsible for the cost of all City Public Improvements (which are expected to be
financed primarily through issuance of TIF Bonds as described in Section 7.4 hereof), except as
follows:
(i) Redeveloper shall reimburse the City for $250,000 of the cost of the “Park Place
Boulevard Improvements” described on Schedule I.
(ii) Redeveloper shall make payments to the City for its share of the Park Place
Boulevard Improvements within 10 days after receipt of written invoices delivered by the City
from to time that reasonably evidence the work performed and the costs incurred or then-payable
by the City.
The Redevelopment Property shall not be specially assessed for costs of the initial construction of
the City Public Improvements; provided that nothing in this Agreement precludes future special
assessments for reconstruction or alteration of City Public Improvements or additional
improvements serving the Redevelopment Property.
(c) Public Improvements Generally. The City and Redeveloper shall cooperate in the
design and construction of all Public Improvements. All Public Improvements must include the
lane configurations as recommended in the AUAR. The Redeveloper and City shall each insure
that plans for the respective portions of Public Improvements accommodate public bus stops and
bus layover facilities throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property
substantially in accordance with the Master Site Plan.
Section 4.5. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after substantial completion of the
Minimum Improvements (or any Phase thereof) in accordance with those provisions of the
Agreement relating solely to the obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum
Improvements or relevant Phase (including the dates for beginning and completion thereof), and
compliance with any other provisions of this Agreement that are expressly stated as conditions for
issuance of Certificate of Completion, the Authority Representative will furnish the Redeveloper
with a Certificate shown as Schedule C. Such certification and such determination shall not
constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Redeveloper to any
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 44
Holder of a Mortgage, or any insurer of a Mortgage, securing money loaned to finance the
Minimum Improvements or any part thereof.
(b) If the Authority Representative shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in
accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority Representative
shall, within fifteen (15) days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the Redeveloper
with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper has failed to
complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is
otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority,
for the Redeveloper to take or perform in order to obtain such certification. If the Authority fails to
provide the Redeveloper with a written statement as to how the Redeveloper has failed to complete
the Minimum Improvements or is otherwise in default within said fifteen (15) day period, the
Authority shall promptly execute and deliver the Certificate o the Redeveloper.
(c) The construction of the Minimum Improvements (or Phase thereof) shall be deemed
to be complete: (i) for Phase I, upon completion of all demolition, utility relocation, and soil work as
reasonably determined by the Authority Representative, together with acceptance by the City of
Utica Avenue and 16th Street in accordance with City ordinances and procedures; and (ii) for all
other Phases, when the City has issued a final certificate of occupancy for all improvements making
up the relevant Phase, excluding tenant build outs, and the Authority Representative has reasonably
determined that all associated site improvements are substantially complete for that Phase.
Section 4.6. Reports. The Redeveloper must submit to the Authority a written report at
least quarterly, starting with the commencement of Phase I and continuing until issuance of the
Certificate of Completion for the final Phase of the Minimum Improvements. The report must
describe progress on construction of the Minimum Improvements and Public Improvements as well
as progress on leasing the commercial and office space within the project.
The Redeveloper agrees to provide a report to the Authority annually by March 1 and
continuing until issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the final Phase of the Minimum
Improvements which describes the cumulative number of full time equivalent (FTE) employees
created on the Redevelopment Property. The parties agree this report is not subject to the reporting
requirements of the Business Subsidy Act.
The Redeveloper also agrees to submit to the Authority written reports so as to allow the
Authority to remain in compliance with reporting requirements under state statutes. The Authority
will provide information to the Redeveloper regarding the required forms.
The Authority will provide to Redeveloper, upon request from time to time, written reports
regarding the amounts of Available Tax Increment and other matters related to the activities of the
City and Authority under this Agreement.
Section 4.7. Additional Requirements. Redeveloper shall undertake all work related to the
Minimum Improvements and the Redeveloper Public Improvements in compliance with all
applicable federal and state laws, including without limitation all applicable state and federal
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 45
Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations. Redeveloper shall subject any subcontractors
retained to the same requirements.
Section 4.8. Maintenance Requirements. The parties agree that, as a condition to
issuance of the Certificate of Completion for each Phase, the Redeveloper and City shall execute
a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement (“REMA”) in recordable form that assigns
those parties’ respective responsibilities regarding maintenance, repairs, and cost of such
activities, related to the subject Phase. There may be a single REMA, or separate documents
related to each Phase, as the parties mutually agree. The City and Redeveloper agree that the
REMA will be based on the following principles.
(a) The City will have primary responsibility for:
(i) customary maintenance, repair and replacement up to the curb line of all
public streets and utilities within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment
Property (and within the Golden Valley Property, subject to terms of the JPA), except as
otherwise provided regarding medians under Section 4.8(b)(iv);
(ii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of standard street lighting
located in the public right of way within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment
Property (and within the Golden Valley Property, subject to terms of the JPA); and
(iii) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of streetscape between the
curb line and the boundary of the right-of-way along the west side of Park Place
Boulevard between Gamble Drive and Interstate 394 and along the south side of Gamble
Drive, together with the entire median within those portions of Park Place Drive and
Gamble Drive.
(b) The Redeveloper will have primary responsibility for:
(i) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of all private streets and
alleys within the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property.
(ii) customary repair and replacement (but not maintenance such as street
cleaning and plowing) of aesthetic enhancements (such as decorative pavers) within any
public right of way within and immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property and
Golden Valley Property (subject to any terms of the JPA).
(iii) customary maintence, repair and replacement for all streetscape between
the curb line and the boundary of the right-of-way along all public streets within and
immediately adjacent to the Redevelopment Property and the Golden Valley Property
(subject to any terms of the JPA), except as otherwise provided regarding specified
portions of streetscape under Section 4.8(a)(iii);
(iv) customary maintenance, repair and replacement of medians within West
16th Street and Utica Avenue.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 46
(c) Each party will have access to property controlled by the other in order carry out
responsibilities under the REMA.
(d) The City will be given authority to cure any defaults by Redeveloper under the
REMA by undertaking the Redeveloper’s defaulted responsibilities under the REMA and
assessing the cost to the relevant Parcels, provided that such remedy will not be the City’s
exclusive remedy.
(e) Redeveloper shall cause AD West End, the owner of Phase IIC, and all Holders
related to the Parcels making up the relevant Phase, to execute a consent to the REMA, and City
shall promptly file the REMA of record, at Redeveloper’s cost.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 47
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance. (a) The Redeveloper or its contractor will provide and maintain at
all times during the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements (which shall not include art
displayed in public spaces) an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance Policy and, from time to time
during that period, at the request of the Authority, furnish the Authority with proof of payment of
premiums on policies covering the following:
(i) Builder’s risk insurance, written on the so-called “Builder’s Risk --
Completed Value Basis,” in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the
insurable value of the Minimum Improvements at the date of completion, and with coverage
available in nonreporting form on the so-called “all risk” form of policy.
(ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent
liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations and contractual liability
insurance) together with an Owner’s Protective Liability Policy with limits against bodily
injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish
the above-required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy may be used); and
(iii) Workers’ compensation insurance, with statutory coverage.
(b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the
Termination Date, the Redeveloper shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and
expense, and from time to time at the request of the Authority shall furnish proof of the payment of
premiums on, insurance as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements under
a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar
businesses.
(ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal injury
liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons and/or
property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of $1,000,000.
(iii) Such other insurance, including workers’ compensation insurance respecting
all employees of the Redeveloper or its tenant, in such amount as is customarily carried by
like organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure;
provided that the Redeveloper or its tenant may be self-insured with respect to all or any part
of its liability for workers’ compensation.
(c) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and
maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Redeveloper or its tenant which are
authorized under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 48
Redeveloper will deposit annually with the Authority policies evidencing all such insurance, or a
certificate or certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force
and effect. Unless otherwise provided in this Article V of this Agreement each policy shall contain
a provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the coverage
provided below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the Redeveloper and
the Authority at least thirty (30) days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. In
lieu of separate policies, the Redeveloper or its tenant may maintain a single policy, blanket or
umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the
Redeveloper shall deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as
to the amount of coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Redeveloper agrees to notify the Authority immediately in the case of damage
exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion
thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Redeveloper will forthwith repair,
reconstruct and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved
condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent necessary
to accomplish such repair, reconstruction and restoration, the Redeveloper will apply the Net
Proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Redeveloper to the payment or
reimbursement of the costs thereof.
The Redeveloper shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the Minimum
Improvements, whether or not the Net Proceeds of insurance received by the Redeveloper for such
purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any Net Proceeds remaining after completion of such
repairs, construction and restoration shall be the property of the Redeveloper.
(e) In lieu of its obligation to reconstruct the Minimum Improvements or any Phase
thereof as set forth in this Section, the Redeveloper shall have the option of paying to the Authority
an amount that, in the opinion of the Authority and its fiscal consultant, is sufficient to pay or
redeem the outstanding principal and accrued interest on all outstanding TIF Bonds, Initial Notes
and Refunding Notes allocable to that Phase. Such allocation shall be based on the required
minimum market value of that Phase determined under Section 6.3 as a share of the aggregate
minimum market value for the entire Minimum Improvements. The option described in this
paragraph shall not apply if, at the time of casualty, there are outstanding Refunding Notes issued on
a tax-exempt basis, and bond counsel determines that operation of this paragraph would impair the
tax-exempt status of such Refunding Notes; in that event, Redeveloper remains obligated to
reconstruct under paragraph (d) of this Section.
(f) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, after completion of the building in
which the police station described in Section 4.1(c)(10) is located, Redeveloper’s sole continuing
obligation under this Article with respect to the police station is to maintain casualty insurance as
described in Section 5.1(b)(i). The City will provide all other types of insurance coverage with
respect to the police station. Nothing in this Article will be construed to limit or affect any
limitations on liability of the City or Authority under State or federal law, including without
limitation Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.04 and 604.02.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 49
(g) The Redeveloper and the Authority agree that all of the insurance provisions set
forth in this Article V shall terminate upon the termination of this Agreement.
Section 5.2. Subordination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Article V, the rights of the Authority with respect to the receipt and application of any proceeds of
insurance shall, in all respects, be subject and subordinate to the rights of any lender under a
Mortgage approved pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement.
Section 5.3. Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties
acknowledge and agree that the provisions of this Article hereof shall not apply to any
condominium unit from and after the date that such unit is substantially completed and sold to an
owner for commercial use.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 50
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the
Authority is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the redevelopment described
in this agreement through issuance of the TIF Bonds and the Initial Notes. The Redeveloper
understands that the Tax Increments pledged to the TIF Bonds and Initial Notes are derived from
real estate taxes on the Redevelopment Property, which taxes must be promptly and timely paid. To
that end, until the Termination Date the Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, in
addition to the obligation pursuant to statute to pay real estate taxes, it is also obligated by reason of
this Agreement to pay before delinquency all real estate taxes assessed against the Redevelopment
Property and the Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper acknowledges that this obligation
creates a contractual right on behalf of the Authority to sue the Redeveloper or its successors and
assigns to collect delinquent real estate taxes and any penalty or interest thereon and to pay over the
same as a tax payment to the county auditor. In any such suit, the Authority shall also be entitled to
recover its costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees. The parties agree and understand that upon
a permitted Transfer under Section 8.3, the transferee assumes the obligation under this Section as
to the property transferred, and the original Redeveloper is released.
Section 6.2. Reduction of Taxes. The Redeveloper agrees that prior to completion of the
Minimum Improvements, it will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of
the Redevelopment Property through: (A) willful destruction of the Minimum Improvements or any
part thereof; (B) willful refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property, except to the extent
otherwise provided in Section 5.1(e); (C) subject to Section 6.3, apply for a deferral or abatement of
property tax on the Redevelopment Property pursuant to any law; or (D) convey or transfer or allow
conveyance or transfer of the Redevelopment Property to any entity that is exempt from payment of
real property taxes under State law (other than any portion thereof dedicated or conveyed to the
Authority or City in accordance with this Agreement).
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreements. (a) Before issuance of any Senior TIF Bonds and
any Initial Notes under Section 7.5, the Redeveloper shall, with the Authority, execute one or more
Assessment Agreements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subd. 8, specifying an
assessor’s minimum market value for the Minimum Improvements or Phases thereof, together with
the Parcel on which they are constructed. The amount of minimum market value for each
agreement will be mutually determined by the parties based upon final Construction Plans.
However, Assessment Agreements and aggregate minimum market values must be in effect by the
completion dates specified in Section 4.3. The Assessment Agreements will terminate as of the
Termination Date, unless earlier terminated at direction of bond counsel in order to issue Refunding
Notes on a tax-exempt basis. Redeveloper shall cause AD West End to execute any Assessment
Agreement related to Phase IIA, and the owner of Phase IIC to execute any Assessment Agreement
related to that Phase. Redeveloper shall also cause Holders of Mortgages secured by any Parcel
encumbered by an Assessment Agreement to execute a consent to such Assessment Agreement,
consistent with Section 7.2 hereof.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 51
(b) Each Assessment Agreement shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as
Schedule D. Nothing in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the assessor to
assign a market value to the property in excess of such assessor’s minimum Market Value nor
prohibit the Redeveloper from seeking through the exercise of legal or administrative remedies a
reduction in such market value for property tax purposes, provided however, that the Redeveloper
shall not seek a reduction of such market value below the assessor’s minimum Market Value in any
year so long as such Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect.
Section 6.4. Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties
acknowledge and agree that upon Transfer of the Redevelopment Property or portion thereof to
another person or entity, the Redeveloper will remain obligated under Sections 6.1 and 6.2
hereof relating to such portion transferred, unless the Redeveloper is released from such
obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 8.2(b) or 8.3 hereof.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 52
ARTICLE VII
Financing
Section 7.1. Redeveloper Financing. (a) Before commencement of any Phase, Redeveloper
shall submit to the Authority evidence of one or more commitments for financing which, together
with committed equity, is sufficient for the construction of that Phase of the Minimum
Improvements. Such commitments may be submitted as short term financing, long term mortgage
financing, a bridge loan with a long term takeout financing commitment, internal financing
provided by Redeveloper or a parent entity or any combination of the foregoing. Similar evidence
shall be submitted prior to commencement of construction of each subsequent Phase of the
Minimum Improvements. Evidence of Redeveloper’s financing will be considered approved unless
rejected in writing by the Authority within 30 days after the last date of Authority review. Approval
of the Redeveloper’s financing will not be unreasonably withheld.
(b) In the event that any portion of the Redeveloper’s funds is provided through
mortgage financing, and there occurs a default under any Mortgage authorized pursuant to
Article VII of this Agreement, the Redeveloper must use commercially reasonable efforts to
cause the Holder to deliver to the Authority a copy of any notice of default under a Mortgage,
and Redeveloper must in any event deliver to the Authority a copy of any default notice the
Redeveloper receives from a Holder. Thereafter, the Authority shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to cure any such default on behalf of the Redeveloper within such cure periods as are
available to the Redeveloper under the Mortgage documents.
Section 7.2. Subordination. In order to facilitate the Redeveloper obtaining external
financing for the development of the Minimum Improvements, the Authority agrees to subordinate
its rights under this Agreement to the Holder of any Mortgage, provided that (i) such subordination
shall be subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Authority and Holder of a Mortgage
mutually agree in writing; (ii) any subordination agreement must include the provision described
in Section 7.1(b), and (iii) the Authority will not subordinate the Authority’s rights under any
Assessment Agreement, or the City’s rights under any REMA entered into under Section 4.8.
Section 7.3. Authority Financing Generally. In order to offset the extraordinary costs
associated with development the Redevelopment Property, the Authority and City will provide
the financial assistance described in the balance of this Article. Generally, the assistance consists
of the following elements: financing of City Public Improvements undertaken by the City
through issuance of TIF Bonds as described in Section 7.4; financing of Redeveloper Public
Improvements (described in Schedule I) and Other Public Redevelopment Costs (described in
Schedule E) incurred by Redeveloper through issuance of Initial Notes (and potentially
Refinancing Notes) as described in Sections 7.5 and 7.6; and reduction of park dedication fees
described in Section 7.8.
Section 7.4 City Public Improvements. (a) Generally. The City and Authority will finance
the cost of the City Public Improvements (described in Section 4.4(b) and Schedule I) through
issuance by the City of general obligation bonds secured by certain Tax Increments and a pledge of
the City’s full faith and credit, all as described in this Section. Bonds that produce net proceeds
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 53
(after deducting costs of issuance, discount and capitalized interest) in the amount of $4,500,000
will be primarily secured by Available Tax Increments from all property in the TIF District. Such
bonds are referred to as “Senior TIF Bonds.” The Senior TIF Bonds will have a final maturity of at
least fifteen (15) years after the date of issue. The City may also issue bonds in any amount deemed
appropriate by the City and Authority, primarily secured in whole or in part by any portion of the
five (5) percent of Tax Increments that are withheld by the Authority in the definition of Available
Tax Increment (such bonds being referred to as “Discretionary TIF Bonds”). Senior TIF Bonds and
Discretionary TIF Bonds are referred to together as “TIF Bonds.” In all cases, the defined terms
include bonds issued to refund the initial bonds, provided that any refunding of Senior TIF Bonds
must not increase the amount of principal and interest due in any year on such bonds.
(b) Conditions. The City’s obligation to issue any Senior TIF Bonds is conditioned
upon execution in full and recording of Assessment Agreements (under Section 6.3) specifying
minimum market values sufficient to produce Available Tax Increments in the amount necessary to
pay 120% of debt service on the Senior TIF Bonds, all as determined by the Authority and its
financial advisor based on tax rates and class rates in effect at the time of calculation.
(c) Deficiency Agreement. Subsequent to issuance of any Senior TIF Bonds, if the
Available Tax Increment received (or reasonably expected to be received) by the Authority 30 days
before any semi-annual scheduled payment date for principal or interest on the Senior TIF Bonds is
less than the amount necessary to make such principal or interest payment (after crediting any
capitalized interest and any balance in the debt service fund as of such date), then the Authority
shall provide notice to the Redeveloper of such fact and the amount of such deficiency in Tax
Increment. No later than 20 days after receipt of such notice of deficiency, the Redeveloper shall
pay to the Authority such deficiency. Failure by the Authority to provide the notice of deficiency
when required by this Section shall not relieve the Redeveloper of its obligation to make the
required payment 20 days after the Redeveloper receives actual notice of the deficiency from the
Authority. The obligation of the Redeveloper to make the payments described in this clause shall be
absolute and unconditional irrespective of any defense or any rights of setoff, recoupment or
counterclaim it might otherwise have against the Authority or any other government body or other
person. The Redeveloper shall not fail to make any required payment under this Section for any
cause or circumstance whatsoever, including without limitation any change in State property tax
laws or any other law, or any other event, even if beyond the control of the Redeveloper. In any
claim, suit or action by the Authority under this Section, the Authority shall be entitled to recover its
costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees.
Section 7.5 Redeveloper Public Improvements and Other Public Redevelopment Costs.
(a) Initial Notes--Generally. The Authority will reimburse the Redeveloper for
Redeveloper Public Improvements (described in Section 4.4(a) and Schedule I) and Other Public
Redevelopment Costs (described in Schedule E) incurred by the Redeveloper, through issuance of
one or more Initial Notes in accordance with the terms of this Section. The Authority will issue the
Initial Notes in series, with one Initial Note primarily secured by Available Tax Increment generated
by Phases IIA, IIB and IIC and generated by all other property within the TIF District; and a second
Initial Note primarily secured by Available Tax Increment from Phase III; provided that these Initial
Notes may be divided into separate Initial Notes as mutually agreed by the Authority and
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 54
Redeveloper, and further provided that the Authority and Redeveloper may mutually agree to secure
all Initial Notes with all Available Tax Increment generated by the TIF District, with all Initial
Notes being on a parity basis with one another. In any event, all Initial Notes are subordinate to any
outstanding TIF Bonds.
(b) Principal Amount. The Initial Notes shall be issued in the maximum aggregate
principal amount that is the lesser of (i) $21,100,000, or (ii) the amount payable from Available Tax
Increment for a term of twenty (20) years as described in Section 7.5(d) hereof (referred to as the
“Maximum Note Amount”); subject to the adjustment described in Section 7.7. Each Initial Note
will be issued in substantially the form set forth in the Authorizing Resolution attached as Schedule
F. Each Authorizing Resolution will be approved upon mutual determination by the Authority and
the Redeveloper of the principal amounts of each Initial Note, but in any event as soon as
reasonably practicable after demolition of all buildings on the relevant Phase related to the Initial
Note. The principal amount of any individual Initial Note will be the net present value of the
projected Available Tax Increment attributable to the relevant Phase, assuming the interest rate
specified in paragraph (d) of this Section, unless otherwise agreed by the Authority; provided that
Initial Notes will be issued separately to reimburse Developer Public Improvements (which
constitute public infrastructure) and Other Public Redevelopment Costs (which constitute private
improvements). The obligation to deliver each Initial Note is conditioned upon (1) the Redeveloper
having delivered to the Authority an investment letter for the Initial Note in a form reasonably
satisfactory to the Authority; (2) there being no uncured Event of Default by the Redeveloper
under this Agreement with respect to the relevant Phase, and (3) demolition of any buildings on
the relevant Phase related to that Initial Note has been completed.
(c) Certification of Costs. Upon issuance of an Initial Note or on any date thereafter,
the Redeveloper may request the Authority to enter an advance of principal under the Initial Note
(a "Principal Advance") on the ledger of such advances maintained by the Registrar (the
"Principal Advance Ledger"), by submitting to the Authority a certificate (the "Principal
Advance Certificate") signed by the Redeveloper’s duly authorized representative, containing the
following: (1) a statement that each cost identified in the certificate is a Developer Public
Improvement cost, or and Other Public Redevelopment Cost, as the case may be, and that no part of
such cost has been included in any previous certification or any disbursement from any other public
financing source described in Article VII hereof, (2) evidence that each identified Developer Public
Improvement or Other Public Redevelopment Cost has been paid or incurred by or on behalf of the
Redeveloper, and (3) a statement that no uncured Event of Default by the Redeveloper has occurred
and is continuing under the Agreement. The Redeveloper may apply Developer Public
Improvements and Other Public Redevelopment Costs incurred anywhere within the
Redevelopment Property toward the principal amount of any Initial Note, except that Developer
Public Improvements and Other Redevelopment Costs may not be combined and applied to the
same Initial Note. Within 20 days after receipt of the Principal Advance Certificate, the
Authority shall, if the Authority Representative has determined that all the aforementioned
requirements have been satisfied, so notify the Redeveloper and direct the Registrar to enter the
amount requested in the Principal Advance Ledger, such entry being dated as of the date of the
Principal Advance Certificate, provided that the aggregate amount of sums entered on the
Principal Advance Ledger shall not exceed the Maximum Note Amount for all Initial Notes
combined. The Authority shall, if not satisfied that the conditions described herein have been
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 55
met, return the Principal Advance Certificate with a statement of the reasons why the Principal
Advance Certificate is not acceptable and requesting such further documentation or clarification
as the Issuer may reasonably require.
(d) Terms. Each Initial Note will bear interest at a rate of 6.75% percent and will be
paid in semi-annual installments on each February 1 and August 1, commencing with the first
August 1 after Available Tax Increment is anticipated to be received from the subject Phase but no
earlier than February 1, 2011 and concluding no later than (i) February 1 of the year following the
20th year after the year of the first installment payment or (ii) February 1 of the year following the
last calendar year in which the Authority receives Tax Increment from the TIF District, whichever
date occurs first. Interest on each Initial Note issued to the Redeveloper will accrue from the date of
each Principal Advance described in clause (ii) of this paragraph (b). Interest accruing from the
date of each Principal Advance through and including the February 1 before first payment date is
compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and added to principal.
(e) Five Year Rule. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement,
pursuant to Section 469.1763, Subdivision 3 of the TIF Act, if Principal Advances for the maximum
principal amount of the Initial Notes have not been entered on the Principal Advance Ledger (i.e.
“registered”) within five years after the date of certification of the TIF District by the County, no
additional Principal Advances will be made and the Authority has no further obligation with respect
to such un-registered amounts.
(f) Qualifications. The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that the
Authority makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of Available Tax
Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Initial Notes will be sufficient to pay the principal and
interest on the Initial Notes. Redeveloper expressly acknowledges that estimates of Tax
Increment prepared by the Authority or its financial advisors in connection with the TIF District
or this Agreement are for the benefit of the Authority, and are not intended as representations on
which the Redeveloper may rely. If the Developer Public Improvements costs or Other Public
Redevelopment Costs exceed the maximum principal amount of the Initial Notes, such excess is
the sole responsibility of Redeveloper.
Section 7.6. Issuance of Refunding Notes. (a) Generally. Upon the Redeveloper’s
request, the Authority will refinance the outstanding principal amount of any Initial Note by
issuing one or more tax increment revenue notes or bonds (the "Refunding Notes") to one or
more third parties, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. The Refunding Notes
may be issued in one or more series, or in series over time. Refunding Notes will be secured
solely by Available Tax Increment, except as otherwise provided in this Section. The
Redeveloper and the Authority will reasonably and timely cooperate with the refinancing efforts,
including providing requested information and attorney opinions and signing documents.
Redeveloper shall be solely responsible for securing buyer(s) for the Refunding Notes.
(b) Tax Status; Redeveloper Guaranty. Refunding Notes may be additionally
secured by a guaranty of Redeveloper or other credit enhancement (a “Redeveloper Guaranty”).
If a Refunding Note refinances an Initial Note related to Developer Public Improvements, the
Refunding Note will be issued on a tax-exempt basis to the extent possible as determined by the
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 56
Authority’s bond counsel. If a Refunding Note refinances an Initial Note related to Other
Public Redevelopment Costs, the Refunding Note will be issued on a taxable basis (if secured
by a Redeveloper Guaranty) or on a tax-exempt basis (if not secured by a Redeveloper Guaranty
and subject to bond counsel’s determination regarding the ability to issue such obligation on a
tax-exempt basis). The parties will negotiate in good faith regarding the relative merits of a tax-
exempt and taxable Refunding Notes related to Other Public Redevelopment Costs, provided
that the Authority shall be entitled to make the decision regarding tax status of such Refunding
Notes (including the decision whether to secure the Refunding Notes with a Redeveloper
Guaranty or other credit enhancement).
(c) Principal Amount, Terms. Issuance of any Refunding Note is subject to the
following terms and conditions:
(1) The revenue stream for Refunding Notes will be based on estimates of
Available Tax Increment from the Minimum Improvements related to each Refunding
Note (together with Available Tax Increment from other Parcels in the TIF District if
pledged) for twenty years (counting from the first full year of increment received from
the relevant Phase) based on the estimated market value of the Minimum Improvements
at the time of issuance of the Refunding Notes, as determined by written notice from the
City assessor.
(2) Estimates of Available Tax Increment (reviewed and approved by the
Authority) must provide at least 120% percent debt service coverage on the Refunding
Notes, subject to adjustment if market conditions permit less and the Authority
approves.
(3) The Authority must approve the underwriter for the Refunding notes and
all underwriting terms and assumptions, provided that the Authority’s consent will not
be unreasonably withheld;
(4) The Refunding Notes will not be issued later than 18 months after the
later of (i) the date the expenditures for Developer Public Improvements or Other Public
Redevelopment Costs (as the case may be) allocated to the relevant Initial Note were
paid, or (ii) the date the facilities financed by the respective Initial Note are placed in
service but no later than 3 years after the date of the original expenditure of the
Developer Public Improvements or Other Public Redevelopment Costs related to that
Initial Note. However, if a Refunding Note is eligible for the small-issuer rebate
exception under Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code, the “18 month” limitation above is
changed to “3 years” and the “3-year” maximum period in clause (ii) is disregarded.
This paragraph does not apply if (1) the Refunding Note is issued on a taxable basis, or
(2) the Authority’s bond counsel determines that the Refunding Note represents
refunding of an “obligation” as defined in Treasury Regulations 1.150-1(b).
(5) No Refunding Note shall be issued to refinance the outstanding principal
amount of the Initial Note (or portion of a larger Initial Note) related to Phase I until the
Redeveloper has commenced construction of Phase II A of the Minimum Improvements,
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 57
and no subsequent Refunding Note shall be issued to refinance the outstanding principal
amount of the Initial Notes for Phase IIB, IIC or III until the Redeveloper has
commenced construction of the subject Phase.
(6) Issuance of the Refunding Notes is subject to market, legal and timing
constraints described in paragraph (d) below.
(d) Timing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority shall have the option to
delay issuance of any Refunding Note temporarily or for as long as the following conditions
exist:
(1) The Authority is prohibited from issuing the Refunding Notes pursuant to
changes in federal law enacted after the date of this Agreement;
(2) Substantial adverse changes in the market conditions have occurred that
make it infeasible to refinance the Initial Notes on a reasonable basis, as confirmed by a
bond underwriter to the Redeveloper and Authority in writing; or
(3) Delay is necessary (i) to ensure that the City, the Authority, and those
two entities combined, will issue no more than $10,000,000 of “qualified tax-exempt
obligations” (as defined in Section 265(b)(3) of the Code) in the year of issuance of the
Refunding Notes; (ii) to ensure that the Assessment Agreement does not cause the
Refunding Notes to be “private activity bonds” within the meaning of the Code,
notwithstanding termination of all Assessment Agreements as of the date of issue, or
(iii) to reach the “Calculation Date” for purposes of the lookback under Section 7.7, if
the Authority’s bond counsel determines that issuance of the Refunding Note prior to
application of the lookback provision under Section 7.7 would impair the tax-exempt
status of a subject Refunding Note.
(4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Authority may not
delay issuance of any Refunding Note for the reason described in clause (3)(i) above if,
at the time of issuance of the Refunding Note, Redeveloper enters into an agreement
reasonably acceptable to the Authority under which Redeveloper agrees to compensate
the Authority or City, as the case may be, for any added cost of borrowing by the
Authority or City to the extent issuance of the Refunding Note causes any governmental
bonds issued by the City or Authority in that year to be ineligible for designation as
“qualified exempt obligations.”
(e) Redeveloper Responsibility Upon Refunding. If the Authority determines in
accordance with Section 7.6(c) that the net proceeds of a series of Refunding Notes will be
insufficient to prepay the entire principal amount of the outstanding Initial Notes or that the
Refunding Notes cannot be issued, the Redeveloper shall do one of the following:
(1) upon issuance of the Refunding Notes and application of proceeds to pay
the outstanding balance of the relevant Initial Note to the extent possible, return the
relevant Initial Note to the Authority along with an unconditional release from the
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 58
Redeveloper and any assignee owner of the Initial Note, which terminates the
Authority’s obligations with respect to the unpaid principal of and accrued interest on
the Initial Note;
(2) provide written assurances to the Authority, deemed acceptable to the
Authority, that the Redeveloper will deliver to the Authority on or before the date of
issuance of the Refunding Notes an amount which, along with the net proceeds of the
Refunding Notes, will be sufficient to prepay the relevant outstanding Initial Note (the
"Cash Requirement"); and deliver the Cash Requirement to the Authority, in
immediately available funds, no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the issuance of the
Refunding Notes, in which event the Authority will issue and the Redeveloper will
accept a subordinate tax increment revenue note in the amount of the Cash Requirement,
secured by Available Tax Increment subordinate to the Refunding Notes; or
(3) provide a written notice to the Authority that Redeveloper waives its right
to request issuance of the relevant Refunding Notes, in which event the relevant Initial
Note will not be prepaid but will remain in full force and effect.
(f) Redeveloper Representations. The Redeveloper makes the following
representations to the Authority with respect to any Refunding Notes issued on a tax-exempt
basis:
(1) The Redeveloper will take no action, and will not fail to take an action
within its control, the effect of which will be to cause any Refunding Note to be
determined to be a "private activity bond" (as such term is defined in Section 141 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and in applicable Treasury
Regulations promulgated pursuant to applicable provisions of the Code (the
"Regulations").
(2) The Redeveloper will take no action, and will not fail to take an action
within its control, the effect of which will be to cause the "private security or payment
test" (as such term is defined in Section 141 of the Code and in applicable Regulations)
or the "private loan financing test (as such term is defined in Section 141 of the Code
and in applicable Regulations to be satisfied with respect to the Refunding Notes.
(3) The Redeveloper will take no action, and will not fail to take an action
within its control, the effect of which will be to cause any Refunding Note to be
determined to be an "arbitrage bond"(as such term is defined in Section 148 of the Code
and in applicable Regulations).
(4) The Redeveloper will take no action, and will not fail to take an action
within its control, the effect of which will be to cause interest on any Refunding Note to
be includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
(g) Other Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement,
from and after the date of issuance of any Refunding Note that (i) refinances an Initial Note related
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 59
to Other Public Redevelopment Costs and (ii) is issued on a tax-exempt basis, the Authority shall
have no right to enforce, and the Redeveloper shall have no obligations under Sections 6.1, 6.2, and
8.3 of this Agreement, unless and to the extent that the Authority shall have received an opinion of a
nationally-recognized bond counsel selected by the Authority to the effect that the receipt by the
Authority of such payment will not cause the interest on the Refunding Notes to become includable
in gross income of the holder thereof for purposes of federal income taxation.
Section 7.7. TIF Lookback.
(a) Generally. The financial assistance to the Redeveloper under this Agreement is based
on certain assumptions regarding likely costs and expenses associated with constructing the
Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property. The Authority and the Redeveloper
agree that those assumptions will be reviewed at the times described in this Section, and that the
amount of Tax Increment assistance provided under Section 7.3 will be adjusted accordingly.
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following terms have the following
definitions:
“Calculation Date” means 60 days after the earliest of (i) the date of Stabilization
for a Phase or facility; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of the subject
Phase or facility; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of
Completion for the Phase or subject facility.
“Net Operating Income” means all net rental income from the subject Phase or
facility received in the last fiscal year prior to the Calculation Date, subject to the
following adjustments: (i) if the Phase or facility has not reached Stabilization as of the
Calculation Date, income will be calculated as the sum of actual net rent plus assumed
rent for the space needed to reach 95% lease-up at rates equal to the average rent from
actual leases as of the Calculation Date; (ii) from that total will be deducted non-
reimbursable expenses (e.g., common area maintenance charges, insurance and taxes)
allocated to the actual vacant area (if Stabilization has occurred) or allocated to the
assumed 5% vacant area (if Stabilization has not occurred); and (iii) from that total will
also be deducted a structural reserve in the amount of $.10 per square foot of the subject
Phase or facility.
“Stabilization” means 95% of leaseable space in the subject Phase or facility is
leased.
“Target Yield” means a Yield on Total Project Costs of 15%.
“Total Project Costs” means all costs incurred by Redeveloper in connection with
the subject Phase or facility as of the Calculation Date, including allocated costs of land,
on-and-off-site improvements benefiting the Phase or facility, leasing commissions,
capitalized interest on all such costs, and operating deficits, and all other hard related soft
costs incurred in connection with the subject Phase or facility, net of (i) the principal
amount of any Initial Notes allocable to the subject Phase or facility, (ii) proceeds from
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 60
Transfer of any undeveloped portion of the Redevelopment Property allocable to the
subject Phase or facility, and (iii) in the case of Transfer of a completed Phase or facility
under a so-called build-to-suit transaction, the portion of Transfer proceeds attributable to
the land. Allocations of Total Project Cost are pro rata based on the square footage of the
subject Phase or facility as a share of the total square footage of Minimum Improvements
under the Master Site Plan.
“Yield on Total Project Costs” means Net Operating Income divided by Total
Project Costs.
(c) Lookback Calculation. Upon the Calculation Date for Phase IIA and IIB and each
office facility in Phase III, the Redeveloper must deliver to the Authority reasonable evidence of
its Yield on Total Project Costs for the subject Phase or facility calculated as of the Calculation
Date, determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and
substantially in the format of the lookback pro forma attached as Schedule J hereto (except that if
definitions in this Section vary from GAAP, the provisions of this Section control). The
Redeveloper agrees to provide to the Authority’s consultant any background documentation
related to the financial data, upon request. The Authority may request a written certificate of a
certified public accountant regarding Total Project Costs and Net Operating Income, to be
provided at Redeveloper’s expense (which expense may be included as part of Total Project
Costs).
If the Yield on Total Project Costs exceeds the Target Yield, the portion of Net Operating
Income in excess of the amount that produces the Target Yield is referred to as the “Excess
Amount.” On the Calculation Date, 50% of the Excess Amount will be applied to reduce the
outstanding principal amount of the Initial Note related to the subject Phase or facility, or applied
to reduce the principal amount of a Refunding Note prior to such Refunding Note being issued.
Section 7.8. Fee Reduction. In addition to other assistance provided to the Redeveloper
under this Section, the City will accept dedication and development of the public spaces in the
Minimum Improvements as partial satisfaction of the park dedication fee under City ordinances,
if any, and will reduce the park dedication fee provided that the amount of reduction will not
exceed $900,000.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 61
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development. The Redeveloper represents and agrees
that its purchase of the Redevelopment Property, and its other undertakings pursuant to the
Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property
and Golden Valley Property and not for speculation in land holding.
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of
Agreement. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that until the completion of construction of a
Phase of the Minimum Improvements as evidenced by issuance of a Certificate of Completion,
with respect to such Phase:
(a) Except as specifically described in this Agreement, the Redeveloper has not made or
created and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial sale,
assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power, or transfer in any other mode or form of or
with respect to this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property
allocable to any Phase or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do
any of the same, to any person or entity (collectively, a “Transfer”), without the prior written
approval of the Authority. The term “Transfer” does not include (i) encumbrances made or granted
by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining construction, interim or permanent
financing necessary to enable the Redeveloper or any successor in interest to the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property or to construct the Minimum Improvements or Phase thereof,
(ii) any lease, license, easement or similar arrangement entered into in the ordinary course of
business related to operation of the Minimum Improvements, or (ii) any sale, conveyance, or
transfer in any form to any Affiliate. Any Transfer is subject to the provisions of this Section.
(b) If the Redeveloper seeks to effect a Transfer, the Authority shall be entitled to
require as conditions to such Transfer that:
(1) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial
responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the Authority, necessary and adequate to
fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Redeveloper as to the portion
of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property to be transferred; and
(2) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the
Authority and in form recordable in the public land records of Hennepin County,
Minnesota, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of
the Authority, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Redeveloper under
this Agreement as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley
Property to be transferred and agreed to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to
which the Redeveloper is subject as to such portion; provided, however, that the fact that
any transferee of, or any other successor in interest whatsoever to, the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property, or any part thereof, has not, for whatever reason,
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 62
assumed such obligations or so agreed, shall not (unless and only to the extent otherwise
specifically provided in this Agreement or agreed to in writing by the Authority) deprive
the Authority of any rights or remedies or controls with respect to the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property, the Minimum Improvements, or any part thereof or
the construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being the intent of the parties as
expressed in this Agreement that prior to completion of any Phase (to the fullest extent
permitted at law and in equity and excepting only in the manner and to the extent
specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement) no transfer of, or change with respect
to, ownership in the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property relating to
such Phase or any part thereof, or any interest therein, however consummated or
occurring, and whether voluntary or involuntary, shall operate, legally, or practically, to
deprive or limit the Authority of or with respect to any rights or remedies on controls
provided in or resulting from this Agreement with respect to the Redevelopment Property
and Golden Valley Property relating to such Phase that the Authority would have had,
had there been no such transfer or change. In the absence of specific written agreement
by the Authority to the contrary, no such transfer or approval by the Authority thereof
shall be deemed to relieve the Redeveloper or any other party bound in any way by this
Agreement or otherwise with respect to the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley
Property, from any of its obligations with respect thereto.
(3) Any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting
the transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property and Golden
Valley Property governed by this Article VIII, shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory
to the Authority.
(c) If the conditions described in paragraph (b) are satisfied, then the Transfer will be
approved and the Redeveloper shall be released from its obligation under this Agreement, as to
the portion of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property that is transferred,
assigned, or otherwise conveyed, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The Authority will
review and respond to a request for Transfer within 30 days after receipt of a written request.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, any Transfer that releases the Redeveloper from
its obligations under this Agreement (or any portion thereof) shall be approved by the
Authority’s Board of Commissioners. If the Redeveloper remains fully bound under this
Agreement notwithstanding the Transfer, as documented in the transfer instrument, the Transfer
may be approved by the Authority Representative. The provisions of this paragraph (c) apply to
all subsequent transferors.
(d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section, if a Phase is transferred
under this Section in part but not in whole, and Redeveloper seeks to be released from its
obligations as to the portion transferred, as a condition to approval of the Transfer the Authority
may designate the portion of Minimum Improvements for that Phase that are allocated to the
transferred Parcel, such that the transferee is bound by all the terms of this Agreement as to the
allocated market value of Minimum Improvements.
(e) The parties agree and understand that as of the date of this Agreement Redeveloper
has conveyed a portion of the Redevelopment Property on which Phase IIA is to be developed to
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 63
AD West End, and that AD West End will construct Phase IIA. The Authority acknowledges such
prior Transfer, provided that nothing in this Section will be construed to release Redeveloper from
its obligations regarding Phase IIA, and Redeveloper remains bound by all terms of this Agreement
as they related to Phase IIA.
(f) The parties further agree and understand that Redeveloper intends to Transfer Phase
IIC to a third party in order to construct that Phase, and that Redeveloper will seek release of
Redeveloper’s obligations with respect to that Phase. The Authority will cooperate with
Redeveloper in such effort, provided that the Transfer will be subject to all the terms and conditions
of this Section, including without limitation the Authority’s rights to approve the transferee as
described herein.
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) Except for any willfull or wanton
misconduct or negligence of the Authority, the City and their governing body members, officers,
agents, servants and employees (the “Indemnitees”), the Redeveloper releases from and covenants
and agrees that the shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees
against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about
or resulting from any defect in the Minimum Improvements.
(b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnitees, Redeveloper agrees to protect and defend the Indemnitees, now or
forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action or
other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from
this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction,
installation, ownership, maintenance and operation of the Minimum Improvements and the Public
Improvements, including without limitation any claim arising from or related to bidding for any
work undertaken by Redeveloper as part of the Redeveloper Public Improvements.
(c) The Indemnitees shall not be liable for any damage or injury to the property of the
Redeveloper or its officers, agents, servants or employees or any other person who may be about the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, Minimum Improvements due to any act of
negligence of any person (other than the Indemnitees).
(d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority
contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and
obligations of the Authority and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or
employee of the Authority in the individual capacity thereof.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 64
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be “Events of Default” under
this Agreement and the term “Event of Default” shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement
(unless the context otherwise provides):
(a) Failure by the Redeveloper, the City or Authority to observe or perform any
covenant, condition, obligation, or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this
Agreement, or any covenant, condition or agreement imposed as part of the Authority approval of
the Plat or the PUD.
(b) If, before issuance of the Certificate of Completion for all the Minimum
Improvements, the Redeveloper shall
(i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement,
composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States
Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law; or
(ii) make an assignment for benefit of its creditors; or
(iii) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or
(iv) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent.
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section
9.1 of this Agreement occurs, the non-defaulting party may exercise its rights under this Section 9.2
after providing thirty days written notice to the defaulting party of the Event of Default, but only if
the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty days or, if the Event of Default is by its
nature incurable within thirty days, the defaulting party does not provide assurances reasonably
satisfactory to the non-defaulting party that the Event of Default will be cured and will be cured as
soon as reasonably possible:
(a) Suspend its performance under the Agreement until it receives assurances that the
defaulting party will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement.
(b) Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper, the Authority may withhold
payments under any Initial Note in accordance with its terms, which withheld amount is payable,
without interest thereon, on the first payment date after the default is cured. Upon default under this
Agreement with respect to any Phase, the Authority may withhold Available Tax Increment
attributable only as to the defaulting Phase, but may not withhold Available Tax Increment
attributable to any Phase for which there is no uncured default as of the relevant payment date.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 65
(c) Upon default by Redeveloper, cancel and rescind or terminate this Agreement,
provided that the Authority may not terminate the Initial Notes or Refunding Notes except in the
case of an Event of Default under Section 6.1 or 6.2.
(d) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable or administrative action, which may
appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce
performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement.
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the
Authority or Redeveloper is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies,
but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other
remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute.
No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any
such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power
may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle
the Authority to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other
than such notice as may be required in this Article IX.
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the
other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be
deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 66
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Authority Representatives Not Individually Liable. The
Authority and the Redeveloper, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and agree that
no member, official, or employee of the Authority shall have any personal interest, direct or
indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any
decision relating to the Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any
corporation, partnership, or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested. No
member, official, or employee of the Authority shall be personally liable to the Redeveloper, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Authority or County or for any
amount which may become due to the Redeveloper or successor or on any obligations under the
terms of the Agreement.
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Redeveloper, for itself and its
successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements provided
for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state and local equal employment
and non-discrimination laws and regulations.
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use. The Redeveloper agrees that, prior to the Termination
Date, the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall devote any part of the Redevelopment
Property and Golden Valley Property then owned by it to the development and operation of the
Minimum Improvements in accordance with this Agreement. Redeveloper shall not discriminate
upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or
occupancy of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property or any improvements
erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. Redeveloper agrees that no portion of the
Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property will be used for a sexually-oriented business,
a pawnshop, a check-cashing business (but not excluding a bank or credit union), a tattoo business,
or a gun business (but not excluding a sporting goods store that sells, as part of its sporting goods
inventory, guns and ammunition), and that such prohibitions shall be placed on any deed
transferring any portion of the Minimum Improvements to any subsequent purchaser.
Section 10.4. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and
Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in
construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 10.5. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the
other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and
(a) in the case of the Redeveloper, is addressed to or delivered personally to the
Redeveloper c/o Duke Realty Corporation, 1600 Utica Avenue South, Suite 250, St. Louis Park
MN 55416, Attn: , Senior Vice President, with a copy to Office of the General Counsel, Duke
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 67
Realty Corporation, 6133 North River Road, Suite 200, Rosemont IL 60018; and
(b) in the case of the Authority, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Authority
at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416, Attn: Executive Director; or
at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time,
designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section.
Section 10.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 10.7. Recording. The Authority may record this Agreement and any amendments
thereto with the Hennepin County recorder. The Redeveloper shall pay all costs for recording.
Section 10.8. Minnesota Law. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State, and any claim arising from this Agreement will be adjudicated in the State.
Section 10.9. Disclaimer of Relationships. The Redeveloper acknowledges that nothing
contained in this Agreement nor any act by the Authority or the Redeveloper shall be deemed or
construed by the Redeveloper or by any third person to create any relationship of third-party
beneficiary, principal and agent, limited or general partner, or joint venture between the Authority
and the Redeveloper.
Section 10.10. Modifications. This Agreement may be modified solely through written
amendments hereto executed by the Redeveloper and the Authority.
Section 10.11. Authority Approvals. Unless otherwise specified, any approval required
by the Authority under this Agreement may be given by the Authority Representative.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 68
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the City have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed in its respective name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed and the
Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf as of the date
first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 2007 by
Paul Omodt and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the
Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 69
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 2007 by
Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the of the City of
St. Louis Park, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 70
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By ____________________________________,
the ______________ of Duke Realty Corporation, an
Indiana corporation and the general partner of the
above-named limited partnership
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _______, 2007 by
______________________, the ______________________ of Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana
corporation and the general partner of Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited
partnership, on behalf of the partnership.
Notary Public
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 71
SCHEDULE A
REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Parcel 1:
Tracts B and C, Registered Land Survey No. 864, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded October 27, 1993 as Document No. 2436330.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012677)
Parcel 2:
Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1624, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
Together with a perpetual easement as shown in Deed Document No. 1100087, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012687)
Parcel 3 (COMPLETELY WITHIN AN EXCEPTION):
Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 864, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012679)
Parcel 4:
Tract 1: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township
29, Range 24 lying West of the East 20.87 acres thereof hereinafter called "the above described
property" and lying South of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner
of the above described property; thence North along the East line of said above described
property 705.21 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence at a right angle
West to the West line of said Section 30 and there terminating,
except the West 40 feet thereof
and except that part thereof lying Westerly of a line run parallel with and distant 35 feet Easterly
of the following described line:
Line 1: Beginning at a point on the North and South Quarter line of Section 4, Township 117
North, Range 21 West distant 1897.81 feet North of the South Quarter corner thereof, thence run
Southeasterly at an angle of 46 degrees 33 minutes 56 seconds from said North and South
Quarter line (measured from South to East) for 45.52 feet; thence deflect to the right on a
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 72
tangential curve having a radius of 381.97 feet and a delta angle of 46 degrees 11 minutes 18
seconds for 307.92 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 28.89 feet and there terminating.
Tract 2: The South 76.46 feet of the following described property to wit:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying West of the East 20.87 acres
thereof except the West 40 feet of said tract in Section 30, Township 29, Range 24 hereinafter
called the "above-described property" lying North of the following described line: Commencing
at the Southeast corner of the above-described property; thence North along the East line of the
above-described property 705.21 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
at a right angle West to the West line of the above-described property and there terminating.
(Torrens Property as to Tracts 1 and 2-Certificate of Title No. 1012676)
Tract 3: That part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30, Township 29 North,
Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, lying north of a line drawn parallel with and 200
feet south, measured at right angles, from the north line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4, and lying west of the southerly extension of the west line of the east 20.87 acres of the
Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said section, except the west 40 feet thereof, all lying in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Abstract Property as to Tract 3)
Parcel 9:
Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1481, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with a
perpetual easement as shown in Deed Document No. 1100087, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012689)
Parcel 10:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1481, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with a
perpetual easement as shown in Deed Document No. 1100087, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012690)
Parcel 11:
Tract B and that part of Tract C, lying North of a line drawn perpendicular to the East line of said
Tract C from a point on said East line distant 49.00 feet North of the Southeast corner of said
Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 1599, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 73
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012735)
Parcel 12 (COMPLETELY WITHIN AN EXCEPTION):
Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1647, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXCEPT that portion
taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate recorded July 21, 1993 as
Document No. 2401510.
Together with a perpetual easement as shown in Deed Document No. 1100087, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012691)
Parcel 14:
That part of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24
described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter;
thence North along the West line of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter to a point 258.6
feet South from the Southwest corner of the North 200 feet of said South Half of the Southwest
Quarter; thence East at a right angle, 315 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North at a
right angle, 243 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the South line of the North 200 feet of
said South Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence East along said South line to its intersection
with the extension South of the West line of Registered Land Survey No. 864; thence South
along said extension to a point distance 424.97 feet South from the Southwest corner of said
Registered Land Survey No. 864; thence West to the point of beginning.
Parcel 15:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range
24 described as beginning at the intersection of the West line of said Section 30 with the South
line of the North 200 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South
along said West line to the North line of Registered Land Survey No. 1481; thence Easterly
along said North line 315 feet; thence Northerly at right angles to said South line of the North
200 feet; thence Westerly along said South line to the point of beginning.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 74
GOLDEN VALLEY PROPERTY
Parcel 5:
Tract 1: Lot 1, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale" and that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4,
lying East of the center line thereof and between the extensions across it of the North and South
lines of said Lot 1, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Tract 2: That part of the North 693.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 30, Township 29, Range 24 lying Westerly and Southerly of State Trunk Highway No.
100, also known as the Belt Line Highway, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012734)
Parcel 6:
That part of vacated Raleigh Avenue and of vacated Douglas Avenue all according to the plat of
"Kavlis Cedardale" lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of State Trunk Highway No.
100 as described in the Final Certificate recorded in Book 412 of Miscellaneous Records, page
148 in the office of the County Recorder and lying Southerly of a line drawn from the Southwest
corner of Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 864 and passing through a point on the East line
of said Tract E distant 18.18 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012686)
Parcel 7:
Lots 2, 3, 4 and 6, Block 4 except that portion of said Lots taken for Belt Line Highway; Lots 7
to 12 inclusive, Block 4 and that part of Raleigh Avenue vacated lying between the Westerly
extension of the South line of said Lot 7 and the North line of said Lot 12 and that part of the
vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the Easterly extensions of the North and South lines
of said Lot 7 and between the South line of said Lot 9 and the North line of said Lot 11 and that
part of the West 1/2 of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the extensions of the
North and South lines of said Lot 8 and between the North and South lines of said Lot 12; ALL
in "Kavlis Cedardale", according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 75
That part of the following described property:
That part of vacated Raleigh and Douglas Avenues as shown on the plat of "Kavlis Cedardale"
lying between the extensions across said Avenues of the South and West lines of Lot 7, Block 4
and that part of said vacated Douglas Avenue adjoining Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 of said plat lying
between the Westerly line of Belt Line Highway and the extension across said Avenue of the
West line of said Lot 7, Block 4, "Kavlis Cedardale";
Which lies Northerly of a straight line extending between the Southwest corner of Tract E,
Registered Land Survey No. 864, Hennepin County, Minnesota and the Westerly right-of-way of
State Trunk Highway 100 passing through a point on the East line of said Tract E distant 18.18
feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract E as measured along said East line, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012678)
Parcel 8:
That part of the South 60 feet of the North 753.61 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, lying West of the Belt Line Highway, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
EXCEPT that portion taken by the State of Minnesota pursuant to Partial Final Certificate
recorded July 21, 1993 as Document No. 2401510.
(Torrens Property-Certificate of Title No. 1012680)
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 76
SCHEDULE B
MASTER SITE PLAN
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 77
SCHEDULE C
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
The undersigned hereby certifies that Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”)
has fully complied with its obligations under Articles III and IV of that document titled “Contract
for Private Redevelopment,” dated ________, 2007 between the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority and the Redeveloper (the “Contract”), with respect to construction of the
Minimum Improvements [or named Phase or facility] in accordance with the Construction Plans,
and that the Redeveloper is released and forever discharged from its obligations to construct the
Minimum Improvements under Articles III and IV.
Dated: _______________, 20___. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
President
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 78
SCHEDULE D
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
and
ASSESSOR’S CERTIFICATION
By and Between
ST LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
This Document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 79
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
[Name of Phase]
THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the ____ day of _________________, 20____ by
and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body, corporate and
politic (the “Authority”) and Duke Realty Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited liability
corporation (the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the Authority and the Redeveloper have entered
into a Contract for Private Development dated ______, 2007 (the “Contract”), pursuant to which the
Authority is to facilitate development of certain property in the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”)
hereinafter referred to as the “Property” and legally described in Exhibit A hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Contract the Redeveloper is obligated to construct certain
improvements upon the Property referred to as the [insert name of Phase or facility], constituting a
portion of the Minimum Improvements under the Contract; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Redeveloper desire to establish a minimum market value for
the Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper represents that it has acquired and now owns fee title to all of
the Redevelopment Property and will continue to own the Redevelopment Property until it is sold to
condominium unit purchasers; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the City Assessor (the “Assessor”) have reviewed the
preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements and have inspected such improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises,
covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as follows:
1. The minimum market value which shall be assessed for ad valorem tax purposes for
the Property described in Exhibit A, together with the portion of the Minimum Improvements
designated as [insert name of Phase or facility] constructed thereon, shall be $____________, as of
January 2, 20___ notwithstanding the progress of construction by such date, and as of each January
2 thereafter the minimum market value shall be $______________ until termination of this
Agreement under Section 2 hereof.
2. The minimum market value herein established shall be of no further force and effect
and this Agreement shall terminate on the earlier of the following: a) the date of receipt by the
Authority of the final payment from Hennepin County of Tax Increments The West End Tax
Increment Financing District, (b) the Termination Date as defined in the Contract, or (c) the date of
execution of a release of this Agreement by the Authority upon direction of the Authority’s bond
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 80
counsel pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Contract. The event referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of
this Section shall be evidenced by a certificate or affidavit executed by the Authority.
3. This Agreement shall be promptly recorded by the Authority. The Redeveloper
shall pay all costs of recording.
4. Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, nor shall
they be construed as, modifying the terms of the Contract between the Authority and the
Redeveloper.
5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and
assigns of the parties.
6. Each of the parties has authority to enter into this Agreement and to take all actions
required of it, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery of this
Agreement.
7. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable
any other provision hereof.
8. The parties hereto agree that they will, from time to time, execute, acknowledge and
deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements, amendments and
modifications hereto, and such further instruments as may reasonably be required for correcting any
inadequate, or incorrect, or amended description of the Property or the Minimum Improvements or
for carrying out the expressed intention of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any further
instruments required to delete from the description of the Property such part or parts as may be
included within a separate assessment agreement.
9. Except as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement, this Agreement may not be
amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing authorized and executed by all parties
hereto.
10. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 81
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Redeveloper have caused this Assessment
Agreement to be executed in their names and on their behalf by their duly authorized
representatives all as of the date set forth above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:____________________________________
Its President
By:____________________________________
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____, 200_, by
__________________________ and __________________________, the President and
Executive Director, respectively, of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on
behalf of said Authority.
_______________________________________
Notary Public
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 82
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:____________________________________
The ____________ of Duke Realty
Corporation, an Indiana corporation and general
partner of Duke Realty Limited Partnership
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ____________, 200_, by
__________________________________, the ________________, of Duke Realty Corporation,
an Indiana corporation and general partner of Duke Realty Limited Partnership, a Minnesota
partnership, on behalf of said limited partnership.
_______________________________________
Notary Public
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 83
CERTIFICATION BY CITYASSESSOR
The undersigned, having reviewed certain plans for the Minimum Improvements to be
constructed and the market value assigned to the land upon which the [relevant Phase or facility
of the] Minimum Improvements are to be constructed, as described in this Assessment
Agreement, hereby states as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for
the assessment of the above described property, hereby certifies that the $__________________
market value hereinabove assigned to the relevant portion of the Property and Minimum
Improvements is reasonable.
_______________________________________
City Assessor for City of St. Louis Park
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ____________, 200_, by _________________,
the City Assessor of St. Louis Park.
_______________________________________
Notary Public
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 84
EXHIBIT A TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of Redevelopment Property
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 85
SCHEDULE E
Other Public Redevelopment Costs
Building demolition, including asbestos abatement
Soil remediation
Site preparation, including excavation and earth retention
Stormwater retention facilities
On-site utilities, including upgrades and sanitary sewer relocation
Landscaping
Lighting
Private streets and alleys
Parking facilities
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 86
SCHEDULE F
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS,
COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS $__________
TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTES, SERIES ____
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park,
Minnesota Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore
approved the establishment of The West End Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF
District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), and have adopted a tax increment
financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. In
connection with the TIF District, the Authority and City have approved a Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the Authority and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Agreement”).
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and
sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public Redevelopment costs of the
Project. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF
District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that
it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Taxable Tax Increment Revenue
Note in the maximum principal amount of $____________ (the “Note”) for the purpose of
financing certain public redevelopment costs of the Project.
1.03. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. The Authority hereby delegates to the
Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Note is to be delivered, in
accordance with the Agreement. The Note shall be issued to Duke Realty Limited Partnership
(“Owner”). The Note shall be dated as of the date of delivery, shall mature no later than
___________ and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.75 percent per annum from the respective
dates of entry of each Principal Advance on the Principal Advance Ledger (as described in
Section 7.5(d) of the Agreement) to the earlier of maturity or prepayment. The Note is issued in
accordance with Section 7.5 of the Agreement.
Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form, with the
blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount and payment schedule adjusted as of the
date of issue:
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 87
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $___________
TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 20__
Date
Rate of Original Issue
6.75% __________, 20___
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received,
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to Duke Realty Limited Partnership or
registered assigns (the “Owner”), solely from the sources and in the manner hereinafter provided,
the principal sum of $___________ or so much thereof as has been from time to time advanced
(the "Principal Amount"), as provided in the Agreement defined hereafter, together with interest
on the unpaid balance thereof accrued from the date of original issue hereof at the rate of 6.75
percent per annum (the "Stated Rate"). This Note is given in accordance with that certain
Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Issuer and Duke Realty Limited Partnership,
dated as of ______________, 2007 (the “Agreement”) and the authorizing resolution (the
“Resolution”) duly adopted by the Authority on ______________, 20___. Capitalized terms
used and not otherwise defined herein have the meaning provided for such terms in the
Agreement unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
1. Payments. Principal and interest (“Payments”) shall be paid on August 1, 20___
and each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including _______________ (“Payment
Dates”) in the amounts and solely from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall
be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the
Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are
payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is
legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest accruing from the respective dates of entry of each Principal
Advance on the Principal Advance Ledger through and including February 1, 20___ will be
compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and added to principal.
Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days and twelve 30-day months.
3. Available Tax Increment. All payments on this Note are payable on each
Payment Date solely from and in the amount of the “Available Tax Increment,” which means, on
each Payment Date, 95 percent of the Tax Increment attributable to the Redevelopment Property
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 88
[or specific Parcel] as defined in the Agreement that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County
in the six months preceding the Payment Date, after payment or provision for payment on such
Payment Date of principal and interest then due on any outstanding Senior TIF Bonds (as
defined in the Agreement). The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and
interest on this Note on each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment.
4. Default. Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper under the Agreement, the
Authority may exercise the remedies with respect to this Note described in Article IX of the
Agreement, the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference.
5. Optional Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable
under this Note is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium
or penalty. If the Authority prepays the Note in part, the prepayment will be applied first to accrued
interest and then to the outstanding principal amount of the Note. Ten days’ prior notice of any
such prepayment shall be given by first-call mail by the Registrar to the registered owner of the
Note. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular Payment
otherwise required to be made under this Note.
(b) The Note may be deemed prepaid in whole or in part in accordance with Section 7.7
of the Agreement. Upon any such prepayment, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement
of the amount applied to prepayment under Section 7.7 and the outstanding principal balance of the
Note after application of the deemed prepayment. Any deemed prepayment under this paragraph
will be applied under the same procedures described in paragraph (a) above.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$___________ issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and administrative
costs of a Redevelopment Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 through 469.047, as amended and is issued pursuant to the Resolution, and
pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota,
including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended. This Note is a limited
obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment
hereof under the Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute
a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including,
without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision
thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident
hereto except from and to the extent of the revenues pledged hereto, and neither the full faith and
credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is
pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth
therein, this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the
principal office of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner’s
attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written
instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such
transfer or exchange and the payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 89
required to be paid by the Authority with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be
issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing
interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates.
This Note shall not be transferred to any person unless the Authority has been provided
with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the
Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus delivery requirements of
federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things
required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen,
and to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the
Authority according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been
performed in due form, time and manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its
President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Executive Director President
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register
of the City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of Signature
of
Registration Registered Owner ____ City Finance Director
Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Federal Tax I.D. No. _____________
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note
numbered R-1.
The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the
Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 90
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be
payable by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of
the month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Finance Director to perform
the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall
be as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the
Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of
transfers and exchanges of the Note.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the
name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Note shall not
be transferred to any person unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel
or a certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is
exempt from registration and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state
securities laws. The Registrar may close the books for registration of any transfer after the
fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and until such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly
cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar
for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement
on such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur
no liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems
improper or unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the
Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such
payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner’s order shall be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the
Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for
any tax, fee, or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or
exchange.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 91
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become
mutilated or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount,
maturity dates and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated
Note or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment
of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case
the Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it
that such Note was lost, stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing
to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory
to it, in which both the Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so
surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be
given to the Authority. If the mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or
been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new
Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its
President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note
shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until
delivery. When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to
the Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and
interest on the Note Available Tax Increment under the terms and as defined in the Note. The
pledge of Available Tax Increment is subordinate to the pledge of such revenue to any
outstanding Senior TIF Bonds. Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the
principal of and interest on the Note in accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in
Section 2 of this resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal
thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains
unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special “Bond Fund” to be used for no
purpose other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority
irrevocably agrees to appropriate to the Bond Fund in each year Available Tax Increment in the
amount necessary to pay principal and interest when due on the Note. Any Available Tax
Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority’s account for the TIF
District upon termination of the Note in accordance with its terms.
4.03. Additional Bonds. If the Authority issues any bonds or notes secured by Available
Tax Increment (other than the Senior TIF Bonds described in the Agreement), such additional
bonds or notes are subordinate to the Note in all respects.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 92
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings.
5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized
and directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings
and records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be
required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same
appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to
them, and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall be deemed representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Adopted this ____ day of _____________, 20__.
____________________________________
President
____________________________________
Executive Director
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 93
SCHEDULE G
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Phase Required
Commencement
Date
Required
Completion
Date
Phase I December 18, 2007 August 1, 2009
Phase IIA July 1, 2008 June 1, 2010
Phases IIB and IIC
March 1, 2009 December 31, 2011
Phase III June 1, 2011 June 1, 2016
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 94
SCHEDULE H
PROJECT PHASING PLAN
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 95
SCHEDULE I
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
City Public Improvements
Park Place Boulevard Improvements
The City shall prepare plans and specifications for, and cause the reconstruction of, Park Place
Boulevard between Gamble Drive and I-394 (generally as shown on the attached Public
Improvements Plan), including raising the elevation of the road, and all road, sewer, water, and
storm sewer within the right of way; and traffic signal improvements that are within or otherwise
serve the Park Place Boulevard right of way. The City shall also install conduit for future wireless
communication in the Park Place Boulevard right of way.
Streetscape Improvements
A. Park Place Boulevard and Gamble
The City shall prepare concept plans and construction plans for all streetscape improvements
(including without limitation sidewalks, landscaping, streetlights and other related amenities)
located with the following rights of way:
1. Park Place Boulevard between Gamble Drive and I-394 and Park Place Boulevard
north of the Redevelopment Property, as generally shown on the Public Improvement Plan.
2. Gamble Drive as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan.
Of those improvements, the City shall construct the west side and median of Park Place Boulevard
and the south side and median of Gamble Drive; the Redeveloper shall construct the balance of such
streetscape improvements as described below.
B. West 16th Street
The City shall also prepare concept plans for all streetscape improvements within the right of way
of West 16th Street from Park Place Boulevard to Utica Avenue South as generally shown on the
Public Improvements Plan; provided that Redeveloper shall prepare construction plans and
construct such streetscape improvements as described below.
Redeveloper Public Improvements
Streets and Utilities
The Redeveloper shall prepare plans and specifications for, and construct, all roads, sewer, water,
and traffic improvements located within the following rights of way:
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 96
1. West 16th Street from Park Place Boulevard to Utica Avenue South as generally
shown on the Public Improvements Plan.
2. Utica Avenue starting from its current alignment north to Wayzata Boulevard as
generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan.
3. Improvements to the T-intersection along Wayzata Boulevard in Golden Valley
(subject to all terms, and conditioned on execution, of the JPA).
4 Traffic-calming improvements along Wayzata Boulevard in Golden Valley (subject
to all terms, and conditioned on execution, of the JPA).
Redeveloper shall also install conduit for future wireless communication in the West 16th Street and
Utica Avenue rights of way, together with conduit in relevant portions of the Redevelopment
Property as needed to connect buildings with the conduit located in the West 16th Street, Utica
Avenue and Park Place Boulevard rights of way.
Streetscape
A. Park Place Boulevard and Gamble.
Using concept and construction plans provided by the City as described above, the Redeveloper
shall construct all streetscape improvements (including without limitation sidewalks, landscaping,
streetlights and other related amenities) located within the following rights of way:
1. The east side of Park Place Boulevard between Gamble Drive and the north end of
the Redevelopment Property as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan.
2. The north side of Gamble Drive as generally shown on the Public Improvements
Plan.
B. West 16th Street
Using concept plans provided by the City as described above, the Redeveloper shall prepare
construction plans and specifications for, and construct, all streetscape improvements (including
without limitation sidewalks, landscaping, streetlights and other related amenities) in the right of
way of West 16th Street from Park Place Boulevard to Utica Avenue South as generally shown on
the Public Improvements Plan.
C. Utica Avenue
Redeveloper shall prepare concept plans, construction plans and specifications for, and construct, all
streetscape improvements (including without limitation sidewalks, landscaping, streetlights and
other related amenities) located in the right of way of Utica Avenue (both sides) from its current
alignment north to Wayzata Boulevard as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 97
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 98
SCHEDULE J
LOOKBACK PRO FORMA
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8e)
Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Page 99
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Tobacco License Violation Penalties
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt first reading of ordinance amendments to Chapter 8, Subdivision X, Sec. 8-378 of
the St. Louis Park Municipal Code concerning tobacco license violation penalties and setting second
reading for January 7, 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Adoption of the tobacco ordinance amendment will increase penalties for second and third
violations that occur within a 36 month period, rather than the 24 months currently in ordinance.
In addition, license holders will be required to attend a mandatory training provided by the Police
Department after failing the first tobacco license compliance check. Is the proposed ordinance in
line with the City Council’s expectations?
BACKGROUND:
Council is concerned about the sale of tobacco to minors and discussed options for amending and
increasing administrative penalties at their August 27, 2007 Study Session. A draft ordinance
was presented to Council at the October 8, 2007 Study Session which included increased
violation penalties for sale of tobacco to minors, extending the timeframe for second and third
violations, and revocation of repeat violations (4 violations within 36 months).
The 34 tobacco licensees were invited to provide their feedback regarding tobacco violations,
proposed administrative penalties, and strategies to prevent the sale of tobacco to minors at a
meeting on November 14, 2007. The license holders in attendance were generally supportive of
the proposed ordinance changes to address the high number of violations occurring in
compliance checks and they agreed it is important to keep youth from purchasing tobacco
products. They also asked that the city consider penalties for the employees who fail the
compliance checks.
Criminal penalties on the individual employee are mandated by MN State Statute. The first
violation for selling to an underage person is a misdemeanor and a subsequent violation in five
years is a gross misdemeanor. While the city is unable to institute additional penalties for those
employees who fail compliance checks, Chief Luse committed to work with the city prosecutor
and the courts to ensure those who fail compliance checks understand the seriousness of their
actions. The city’s prosecutor will also work to help the courts understand the serious
implications to the employer. Licensee holders thanked the city for the opportunity to provide
their feedback.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8f) Page 2
Subject: 1st Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
Staff has amended the proposed ordinance based on direction from Council at previous Study
Session meetings, direction from city attorney, and feedback from open house meetings held
with tobacco licensees. The ordinance was also amended to state that the presumed penalties for
violations indicate consecutive business days’ suspension similar to Ordinance No. 2329-07
regarding presumed penalties for liquor violations.
Staff recommends that upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, any new tobacco license
violations occurring after the effective date of proposed ordinance (February 1, 2008) will be
considered as the first violation, and any prior tobacco violations would not be included in the
three year time period computation of violations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Penalties are part of the ordinance and not a part of the fee schedule, so if approved, this would
not have an affect on the 2008 budget.
The penalties are meant to serve as a deterrent to establishments; the ordinance is being revised
with the hope that establishments will be in compliance and there will be no need to collect fees
and hold administrative hearings. However, establishments which fail compliance checks will
pay more fees in penalties to the city if this ordinance is approved.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Preventing the sale of tobacco to minors by imposing more restrictive penalties is consistent with
our designation as a 100 Best Communities for Young People and a Children First Community.
Attachments: Ordinance amending Chapter 8 Subd. X. Tobacco Licensing Penalties
Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8f) Page 3
Subject: 1st Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
ORDINANCE NO. _____-07
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 SUBDIVISION X
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CONCERNING
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 8-378 of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 8-378. Violation; penalty.
(a) Generally. Any violation of this subdivision shall be grounds to revoke or suspend a
license under this subdivision.
(b) Criminal penalty. As set forth in M.S.A. ch. 609, it shall be a:
(1) Misdemeanor for anyone to sell tobacco or tobacco-related products to a person under
the age of 18 years for the first violation. Whoever violates this subdivision a
subsequent time within five years of a previous conviction under this subdivision is
guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(2) Misdemeanor to furnish tobacco or tobacco related devices to a person under the age
of 18 years. Whoever violates this paragraph a subsequent time is guilty of a gross
misdemeanor.
(3) Petty misdemeanor for anyone under the age of 18 years to possesses, smoke, chew, or
otherwise ingest, purchase, or attempt to purchase tobacco related products.
(4) Petty misdemeanor for anyone under the age of 18 years to sell, furnish or give away
any tobacco related products. This subsection shall not apply to an employee of the
license holder under the age of 18 years while such employee is stocking tobacco
related products.
(c) Administrative penalty. A licensee shall pay to the city a civil penalty of $250.00 for an
initial violation and $500.00 for a second violation of a provision of this subdivision or a state
law governing the sale of tobacco related products within a 12-month period. The city council
may revoke or suspend a license, impose a civil penalty of up to $2,000.00 or impose a
combination of these sanctions for a third or subsequent offense of this subdivision within a 24-
month time period.
(c). Presumed penalties for Violations: The presumed penalties for violations are as
follows (unless specified, numbers below indicate consecutive business days’
suspension):
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8f) Page 4
Subject: 1st Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
Type of Violation
1st
Violation
2nd
Violation
within
36 months
3rd
Violation
within
36 months
4th
Violation
within
36 months
1. Commission of a felony related to the
licensed activity.
Revocation
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Sale of tobacco while license is under
suspension.
Revocation
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Sale of tobacco to underage person:
$250
$750
and 1 day
$2,000
and 3 days
Revocation
4. Refusal to allow government
inspectors or police admission to
inspect premises.
5 days
15 days
Revocation
N/A
5. Illegal gambling on premises.
3 days
6 days
18 days
Revocation
6. Failure to attend mandatory
education training
$250
$750 and
1 day
$2,000 and
3 days
Revocation
The penalty for violations without a presumptive penalty shall be determined by the City
Council. The imposition of the presumptive penalty shall be a written notice to the licensee and
may be appealed through an administrative hearing process as set by the city manager. The city
manager's decision may be appealed to the city council by filing a written appeal to the city clerk
within ten days of receiving written notice of the city manager's decision.
(d). Multiple violations: At a licensee’s first appearance before the Council, the Council must
act upon all of the violations that have been alleged in the notice sent to the licensee. The
Council in that case must consider the presumptive penalty for each violation under the first
appearance column in subsection (B) above. The occurrence of multiple violations is grounds
for deviation from the presumed penalties in the Council’s discretion.
(e). Subsequent violations: Violations occurring after the notice of hearing has been mailed,
but prior to the hearing, must be treated as a separate violation and dealt with as a second
appearance before the Council, unless the City Manager and licensee agree in writing to add the
violation to the first appearance. The same procedure applies to the second, third, or fourth
appearance before the Council.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8f) Page 5
Subject: 1st Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
(f). Subsequent appearances: Upon a second, third, or fourth appearance before the Council
by the same licensee, the Council must impose the presumptive penalty for the violation or
violations giving rise to the subsequent appearance without regard to the particular violation or
violations that were the subject of the first or prior appearance. However, the Council may
consider the amount of time elapsed between appearances as a basis for deviating from the
presumptive penalty imposed by this Section.
(g). Computation of violations: Multiple violations are computed by checking the time period
of the three (3) years immediately prior to the date of the most current violation.
(h). Other penalties: Nothing in this Section shall restrict or limit the authority of the Council
to suspend up to sixty (60) days, revoke the license, impose a civil fee not to exceed two
thousand dollars ($2,000.00), to impose conditions, or take any other action in accordance with
law; provided, that the license holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing in the
manner provided in this Chapter.
(i). Additional Requirements. In addition to civil penalties, every licensee that has been found
in violation of this Chapter must enter into and complete an education training program approved
by the City’s Police Department.
(d) Notice and hearing. The imposition of the civil penalty shall be a written notice to the
licensee and may be appealed through an administrative hearing before the city manager. The
city manager's decision may be appealed to the city council by filing a written appeal to the city
clerk within ten days of receiving written notice of the city manager's decision.
(e) Revocation or suspension. Revocation or suspension of a license by the city council shall
be preceded by a public hearing. The city council may appoint a hearing examiner or may
conduct a hearing itself. The hearing notice shall be given at least 20 days prior to the hearing,
include notice of the time and place of the hearing and state the nature of the charges against the
licensee and specify the penalty that the city may impose for the violation.
(f) Criminal prosecution. Any civil penalty, suspension or revocation, or combination
thereof, under this section does not preclude criminal prosecution under this subdivision or under
any applicable state statute.
(g) (j). Exceptions and defenses. Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent the providing of
tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minor as part of a bona fide religious,
spiritual or cultural ceremony. It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of this subdivision
for a person to have reasonably relied upon proof of age as set forth by state law.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8f) Page 6
Subject: 1st Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
Section 2 This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading December 17, 2007
Second Reading January 7, 2008
Date of Publication January 17, 2008
Date Ordinance takes effect February 1, 2008
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8f) Page 7
Subject: 1st Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. _____-07
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 SUBDIVISION X
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CONCERNING
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES
This ordinance relates to amendments to Chapter 8 Subd. X, Section 8-378 of the St. Louis Park
Municipal Code concerning tobacco licensing violations and penalties.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council January 7, 2008
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: January 17, 2008
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8g
Regular Meeting Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Resolution declaring ARINC, INC in default of its obligations under the Contract.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve resolution declaring ARINC, INC in default of city wireless broadband
network contract.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the city declare ARINC, INC in default of its obligations under contract?
BACKGROUND:
On December 14, 2006, the City of St. Louis Park entered into a contact with ARINC, INC
(ARINC) for purchase and installation of wireless broadband network. After extensive time and
work with ARINC, the contract provisions have not been met.
On December 7, 2007, the City sent ARINC a notice of owner’s intent to declare contractor in
default.
On December 12, 2007, representatives of the City and ARINC met and ARINC was provided the
opportunity to discuss matters relating to the contract default, including ARINC’s continuing failure
to make any portion of the system meet contract specifications.
After extensive work on this project and review of all the information, the City has determined that
ARINC remains in default under the contract. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the
attached resolution regarding ARINC.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The failure of ARINC to meet contract requirements has significantly altered the business model
of this program in a negative way.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8g) Page 2
Subject: ARINC Contract Default
RESOLUTION NO. 07-_____
RESOLUTION DECLARING ARINC, INC. IN DEFAULT
OF CITY WIRELESS BROADBAND NETWORK CONTRACT
WHEREAS, ARINC, Inc. is in default of its obligations under its contract with the City for
the Purchase and Installation of a Wireless Broadband Network;
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2007, the City attorney gave ARINC written notice of the
City’s intention to declare ARINC in default;
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2007, representatives of the City and ARINC met and
ARINC was provided the opportunity to discuss matters relating to the contract default, including
ARINC’s continuing failure to make any portion of the system meet contract specifications;
WHEREAS, ARINC remains in default of its obligations under the Contract.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AS FOLLOWS:
1. ARINC is hereby declared to be in default of the Contract for the following reasons:
Contract Section 48.12 (Appendix J):
The Work cannot be completed within the time herein provided
therefore or within the time to which such completion may have
been extended;
Contract Section 48.13 (Appendix J):
The Contractor is not or has not been executing the contract in
good faith and in accordance with its terms;
Contract Section 48.14 (Appendix J):
The Work is not completed within the required time or within the
time to which the Contractor may be entitled to have such
completion extended;
Contract Section 2 (Wireless Broadband Network)
The work does not meet the minimum contract performance
specifications.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8g) Page 3
Subject: ARINC Contract Default
2. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to immediately notify ARINC and its
bonding company of the declaration of default.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 17, 2007
Agenda Item #: 8h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Resolution approving 2008 compensation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution confirming a 3% general increase for non-union employees, not
including the City Manager at this time, continuing the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program
and also increasing Performance Program Pay for Paid-on-Call Firefighters by 3% for 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to confirm the recommended 2008 Employee Compensation?
BACKGROUND:
This report summarizes employee compensation for 2008.
A. Non-Union Employee Compensation - 3% General Increase Effective 1/1/08
Our compensation plan, which was adopted in 1997, allows the City Manager to approve
the standard adjustment by considering market data for public sector positions and
general financial conditions of the City. A review of the market was conducted by Rod
Kelsey, Compensation Consultant, Principal and Vice President of Riley, Dettmann &
Kelsey. Mr. Kelsey reviewed the salaries of St. Louis Park in comparison with metro
area cities (suburbs) with population over 25,000, but less than 90,000, as required in our
compensation plan. After review of the market, the consultant determined that pay
maximums for St. Louis Park should increase an overall 3%.
City Manager Recommendation Regarding Setting Non-Union Salary for 2008
Upon review of the data, the City Manager has approved a 3% standard wage adjustment
for non-contract employees effective January 1, 2008.
The 3% increase will be applied in accordance with our compensation plan. In our plan,
after successful completion of probation (typically six months), a position receives
double the standard increase to step through the pay range. This type of pay progression
continues until the pay line is reached, which is the maximum of the pay range. Positions
at the maximum will receive the standard adjustment of 3%.
B. Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program
Our paid-on-call firefighters receive a life insurance benefit through the Volunteer
Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota. Our personnel policy requires Council
approval for conditions of employment relating to performance bonuses or insurance.
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8h) Page 2
Subject: 2008 Compensation
This program is very affordable, total annual premium is $303. This policy covers one
career firefighter eligible (due to a continuation clause) and our paid-on-call firefighters.
It covers life insurance up to $20,000 and also provides some disability coverage. This
program is a typical benefit offered to other paid-on-call firefighters in municipalities in
the metro area. Since paid-on-call firefighters are not eligible for the benefits of other
employees, it is important that we provide some type of life insurance coverage for this
group. We recommend Council approves continued participation in this program
consistent with Resolution 05-150.
C. Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program
Our Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program system was established in 1996. The
Performance Program system was designed for our paid-on-call firefighters to be
competitive with our volunteer neighbors, and alleviate the need of a Fire Department
Relief Association. The Performance Program is reviewed annually. For 2008, the Fire
Chief has recommended a 3% increase to this program, effective January 1, 2008.
(Payment is typically made at year end based on performance as approved by the Fire
Chief.)
D. Salary Cap & City Manager Salary
The contract for the City Manager states that base salary and benefits must be set when
salaries are established for other non-union employees. The City Manager recommends
waiting on setting this salary for 2008 until the Council has had the opportunity to have
the discussion on his overall work for 2007 (tentatively scheduled for January). This
section is for informational purposes only at this time.
Salary Cap: During the 2005 Legislative Session, a bill was passed that allows the salary
cap to be adjusted annually for inflation. MN Department of Employee Relations
(DOER) has issued a statement that the salary cap for 2008 will increase from $139,817
to $144,711.
The 2007 annual salary for City Manager is $141,457. For 2007, the $600 monthly car
allowance and $1,640 of the annual salary was placed in PTO.
2008 Pay Range: After review of the regional market data in the United States, our
Consultant recommends Council increase the pay range for City Manager 3% and set the
range at $123,845 to $145,701 (2007 pay range was $120,238 to $141,457).
2008 Salary: When applying the 3% increase in salary for 2008, the compensation would
be $145,700 ($141,457 x 3% = $145,701), therefore the PTO would apply to $990 and
the car allowance.
Paid Time Off (PTO Program)
The PTO program is approved by Council and part of the City’s Personnel Manual.
Section 9.13 Paid Time Off (PTO) Program states: Effective 01/01/02, exempt
employees, including the City Manager, who reach the salary limit requirements of M.S.
43A.17, Subd. 9, shall receive equivalent hours above the limit in paid leave (PTO).
Amount of paid leave (PTO) is determined by the City Council. Paid leave (PTO) is
typically accrued on a per pay period basis, although the Council may issue paid leave
(PTO) as a lump sum amount of time. Paid leave (PTO) may be used as earned,
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8h) Page 3
Subject: 2008 Compensation
maintained in a paid leave (PTO) bank or cashed out upon separation of employment.
Paid leave (PTO) is separate and not part of the flex leave program (Resolution 02-127).
Each July 31, all hours in the PTO balance must transfer to a Health Care Savings Plan
account established for the employee in accordance with plan requirements (Resolution
05-104).
General comment: Copies of the Compensation Plan and Personnel Manual are available from
the City Clerk.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The items recommended for approval have been included in the 2008 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8h) Page 4
Subject: 2008 Compensation
RESOLUTION NO. 07-____
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING A GENERAL INCREASE FOR NON-UNION
EMPLOYEES; CONTINUING PARTICIPATION IN THE VOLUNTEER
FIREFIGHTER BENEFIT PROGRAM AND INCREASING PERFORMANCE
PROGRAM PAY FOR PAID-ON-CALL FIREFIGHTERS
WHEREAS, the City Council established and approved, by Resolution, the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and Section VIII-C of such
Plan directs the City Manager to approve the standard adjustment to the Plan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
A. Confirms the City Manager’s decision to implement a standard adjustment of 3%,
effective January 1, 2008 for non-union employees in accordance with the
Position Classification and Compensation Plan.
B. Approves continuation of participation in the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit
Association of MN Benefit Program for 2008, consistent with Resolution 05-150.
C. Approves a 3% percentage increase in the Paid-on-Call Firefighters 2008
Performance Program, effective January 1, 2008.
Performance Program: Paid-on-Call Firefighters
For 0 – 23 months of service, paid-on-call firefighters are eligible to receive a
monthly amount. After 23 months, they are eligible to receive an annual amount.
This amount may be pro-rated for actual number of months worked. All amounts
after the 23 month timeframe show annual amounts and should be adjusted
accordingly as follows:
Years of Service
2008 Annual
Up to 23 Months
of Service
$136 per month
2 $1,771
3 $1,901
4 $2,046
5 $2,177
6 $2,307
7 $2,439
8 $2,583
9 $2,715
10 $2,845
11 $2,990
12 $3,134
13 $3,265
14 $3,409
15 $3,540
16 $3,672
17 $3,803
18 $3,947
19 $4,078
20 $4,210
Meeting of December 17, 2007 (Item 8h) Page 5
Subject: 2008 Compensation
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk